VOLUME  I.     LANDS. 


District  Court  of  the  United  States 

FOR  THE 

Northern  District  of  California 


SECOND  DIVISION 


Nos.     14.7:!:).     14. 8!):?. 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  COMPANY,       '    ir>-1:J1-  ir>-:'44-  1'V)(i') 
131   .    ,.„  I    Circuit  Court  <>!'  1".  S., 

llailltltt'  |    Ninth    -Judicial     Cir- 

vg  j    cuit.     Northern     l)is- 

-  trict     of     California. 

CITY   AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRAN-          »', 


CISCO,  ET  Ai,, 


Defendants. 


ern  District  of  C;ili- 
i'oi-niti.  Second  Divis- 
ion. 


ABSTRACT  OF  TESTIMONY  TAKEN  BEFORE  IIONORAP.LE 

ii.  M.  WRIGHT.  STANDING;  .MASTHR  IN  CHANCERY  FOR 

THE  DISTRICT  COURT  OF  THE  I  NITF.D  STATES  IN 
AND  FOR  THE  NORTHERN  DISTRICT  OF  CALIFORNIA. 
SECOND  DIVISION.  IN  THE  PROCEEDING  ENTITLE!) 
SPRING  VALLEY  \YATKK  COMPANY  vs.  THE  < 
AND  COC.NTY  Or1  SAN  FRANCISCO,  ET  AL..  IN  EQl  ITY 
XOS.  AS  ABOVE. 


For  Defendants : 

PERCY  V.  LONG,  Es^. 
JKSM;   II.  SrKixifART,   ESQ. 
ROBERT  M.  SHARKS,  Es(t>. 

EDWARD  J.   Mo  l^.. 

\YARREX   OI.XKV.  JR..   Esc,*., 
A.  C.  GREENE,  E*I., 

Solicitors  for  Plaintitf. 

COMPANY,    i'RINTKHS,    SAN     FRANfiSCO 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 
LOS  ANGELES 


IN  THE 


District  Court  of  the  United  States 


FOR  THE 


Northern  District  of  California 

Second  Division 


SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  COMPANY, 
Complainant, 

vs. 

CITY  AND   COUNTY  OF   SAN  FRAN- 


CISCO, ET  AL., 


Defendants. 


Nos.  14,735,  14,892, 
15,131,  15,344,  15,569, 
Circuit  Court  of  U.  S., 
Ninth  Judicial  Circuit, 
Northern  District  of 
California,  and  26  and 
96  District  Court  of  U. 
S.  Northern  District  of 
California,  Second  Di- 
vision. 


ABSTRACT  OF  TESTIMONY  TAKEN  BEFORE  HON.  H.  M. 
WRIGHT,  STANDING  MASTER  IN  CHANCERY  FOR  THE 
DISTRICT  COURT  OP  THE  UNITED  STATES  IN  AND  FOR 
THE  NORTHERN  DISTRICT  OF  CALIFORNIA,  SECOND 
DIVISION,  IN  THE  PROCEEDING  ENTITLED  "SPRING 
VALLEY  WATER  COMPANY  vs.  THE  CITY  AND 
COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO,  ET  AL,  IN  EQUITY  Nos. 
AS  ABOVE. 


ABSTRACT  OF  TESTIMONY. OF  COMPLAINANT 


FIRST  HEARING.  JULY  12,  1915. 

Appearance  by  counsel.  j 

Argument  over  understanding  as  to  valuations  to  be  proved  as         1-2 

.of  Dec.  31,  1913;  capital  expenditures  deducted  prior  thereto  and 

added  since. 

Judges'  order  refers  eight  cases  to  Master  beginning  fiscal  year         2 

July  1,  1914,  then  back  for  eight  years. 


SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

3-7  Discussion  of  stipulation  to  effect  adjustment  as  between  calendar 

years  and  fiscal  years.    Counsel  state  that  they  will  attempt  to  agree 
by  stipulation  later. 

Witness  JOHN  JOSEPH  SHARON. 

DIRECT    EXAMINATION    BY    MR.    OLNEY. 

Am  Assistant  Engineer  of  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Company. 

8  Have  been  employed  over  seventeen  years  by  Spring  Valley  Water 
8-9         Company  and  its  predecessor.     I  began  as  time-keeper  during  con- 
struction of  San  Andres  pipe  line,  and  during  installation  of  Millbrae 
Pumping  Station,  pipe  line,  and  auxiliaries  of  Millbrae  Pumping 
Station,  and  during  construction  of  Sunol  Aqueduct  and  filter  beds 
at  Sunol  and  a  part  of  Alameda  pipe  line. 

Was  one  year  in  Water  Division  as  flume  tender;  six  years  in 
Engineering  Department  as  clerk;  five  years  as  Assistant  Superin- 
tendent of  the  City  Distributing  System,  and  last  year  as  Assistant 
Engineer. 

I  have  had  charge  of  the  Statistical  Department,  and  am  familiar 

9  with  the  various  properties  of  the  company,  and  of  the  demands  of 
the  service  upon  the  company's  properties.    Am  acquainted  with  the 
operating  side  of  the  company  as  well  as  the  engineering  side. 

Identifies  topographical  map  of  the  region  surrounding  the  Bay 
of  San  Francisco,  modeled  by  Mr.  F.  F.  Kelsey.  It  is  accurate  for  all 
practical  purposes  for  a  map  of  that  size.  Shows  the  lands  and  the 

10  locations   of   some    of   the    conduits    and   reservoirs    of   the    Spring 
Valley  Water  Company.     The  property  which  is  either  enclosed  in 
red  or  is  colored  in  a  solid  red  is  the  property  that  is  owned  in  fee.    I 
think  that  that   map   represents   the   property   that   the   company 
owned  as  of  December  31,  1913.     Riparian  rights  are  indicated  in 

11  yellow,  water  sheds  by  green  lines.     Map  admitted  as  "Plaintiff's 
Exhibit   1"   without   the   printed  matter   upon   it  above   the   word 
"Legend". 

12  Map  introduced  made  up  of  various  sheets  of  United  States  Geo- 
logical Surveys  covering  the  district  in  and  about  San  Francisco  Bay. 
The  land  of  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Company  is  portrayed  thereon 
in  red.    Yellow  indicates  the  riparian  rights  of  the  company,  green 
the  boundaries  of  the  water  sheds.    Reservoir  sites  are  indicated  in 
blue.    Map  admitted  as  Complainant's  "Exhibit  2".     Also  indicates 

13  the  main  conduits  of  the  company  in  red. 

Introduces  a  map  of  district,  including  San  Francisco  and  the 
region  about  San  Francisco.  The  lands  and  the  riparian  rights 
owned  by  the  company  all  indicated  in  red  and  yellow.  Main  con- 
duits for  bringing  water  into  San  Francisco  indicated  in  yellow,  red 

14  and  green,  marked  "Complainant's  Exhibit  3". 

The  Lake  Merced  source  of  supply  located  almost  wholly  within 
the  City  and  County  of  San  Francisco.  The  water  is  delivered  by  a 


}\^  Bh, 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

pumping  station  located  on  easterly  shore  of  the  south  lake,  forced 
through  the  Merced  Filter  Plant,  through  a  23-inch  force  pipe  to  top 
of  hill  known  as  Daly  Hill  or  Daly  City ;  the  water  flows  by  gravity 
through  a  30-inch  pipe  line  flumed  for  a  short  distance,  a  44-inch 
pipe  and  through  a  brick  lined  tunnel.  It  is  delivered  into  the  Lake 
Honda  reservoir  at  San  Francisco  at  an  elevation  of  about  365  feet 
above  the  city  base.  The  pumping  station  is  marked  by  a  blue  spot 
on  Lake  Merced,  and  the  conduit  from  there  to  top  of  Daly  City  Hill 
is  marked  in  deep  green. 

The  next  nearest  source  of  supply  is  the  San  Andres  reservoir, 
elevation  446  feet,  supplied,  in  addition  to  its  own  water  shed,  from 
the  drainage  area  reservoir  known  as  Pilareitos  Reservoir.  The 
water  flows  from  San  Andres  reservoir  to  San  Francisco  through 
conduit  colored  light  green  on  "Exhibit  3".  First  portion  of  conduit  15 
is  brick  lined  tunnel.  Water  leaves  this  at  an  elevation  of  368  feet 
above  high  tide,  and  flows  through  a  44-inch  wrought  iron  pipe  as  far 
as  the  Town  of  Baden.  (Indicated  on  "Exhibit  3"  as  Baden  Station.) 
Here  44-inch  pipe  has  two  branches ;  one  30-inch,  colored  green,  runs 
from  Baden  Station  to  back  of  cemetery,  in  through  Colma,  around 
base  of  the  hill  at  Daly  City,  and  through  Ocean  View,  follows  along 
San  Jose  Avenue  and  ends  at  College  Hill  Reservoir  at  elevation  of 
255  feet  above  city  base.  The  other  branch,  from  Baden  Station 
northward  is  called  the  Baden-Merced  Pipe  Line.  (Indicated  on  "Ex- 
hibit 3"  in  carmine).  It  is  30-inches  in  diameter,  and  delivers  water 
to  the  city  pumps  located  on  the  east  shore  of  the  South  Lake  Mer- 
ced. Also  delivers  water  to  the  Central  pumping  station,  located  on 
Sloat  Boulevard  about  Twenty-third  Avenue,  which  forces  the  water 
to  the  Baden-Mereed  pipe  line  through  a  30-inch  pipe  (also  colored 
carmine)  following  Corbett  Avenue  to  the  junction  of  the  pipe  line 
indicated  on  this  map  as  Pilareitos  Pipe  Line,  being  the  pipe  de- 
scribed in  connection  with  the  water  from  city  pumping  station  at 
Lake  Merced  to  Lake  Honda  Reservoir.  The  water  then  from  this 
connection  runs  into  Lake  Honda  Reservoir. 

The  City  pumps  pump  the  water  into  the  pipe  line  which  is  used 
to  take  water  from  Lake  Merced  into  Lake  Honda,  and  by  that 
means  the  City  pumps  supply  water  to  Lake  Honda  as  well,  which 
is  one  of  the  distributing  reservoirs  in  the  city. 

The  light  green  conduit  on  the  map  is  actually  used  for  taking        16 
the  water  to  the  city  pump;  the  conduit  used  for  taking  the  water 
out  is  colored  deep  green. 

The  elevations  of  the  reservoirs  in  San  Francisco  are  usually 
referred  to  the  city  base  or  datum  line  established  years  ago,  which 
datum  is  always  referred  to  in  city  elevations.  That  base  is  6.7  feet 
above  ordinary  high  tide.  The  elevation  at  the  collection  works,  such 
as  the  Peninsula  System,  and  in  the  Alameda  System,  is  the  datum 
plane  established  by  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Company,  and  is 


353976 


SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

known  as  the  "Crystal  Springs  base,"  which  corresponds  with  the 
elevation  of  ordinary  high  tide  as  it  was  determined  at  Coyote  Point 
(marked  San  Mateo  Point  on  "Exhibit  3")  by  the  Spring  Valley 
16-17  Water  Company  about  1890.  "Crystal  Springs  Base"  is  the  eleva- 
tion referred  to  in  the  properties  and  reservoirs  of  the  company  in 
the  Peninsula  and  Alameda  system,  and  is  4.984  ft.  below  the  city 

17  base.     The  water  from  San  Andres  gets  into  the  city  in  this  way, 
some  goes  to  Lake  Honda,  and  some  to  College  Hill  Reservoir.     In 
the  water  which  comes  from  San  Andres  is  also  included  the  water 
which  comes  from  Pilarcitos,  and  from  the  stone  dam  on  Pilarcitos 
Creek  below  Pilarcitos  Dam,  which  is  conducted  by  tunnels  and 
flumes  from  stone  dam  and  Pilarcitos  Dam  into  Lake  San  Andres. 

The  next  source  of  supply  is  the  Crystal  Springs  Reservoir.  It 
has  a  capacity  of  22,600  million  gallons;  it  has  an  elevation  of  288 
feet  and  controls  the  flow  from  221/£  square  miles  of  water  shed.  The 
water  is  delivered  into  San  Francisco  through  a  44-inch  wrought  iron 
pipe  (indicated  on  "Exhibit  3,"  as  Crystal  Springs  44-inch  pipe 
line),  colored  light  red,  taking  approximately  the  following  route: 
Down  the  San  Mateo  Canon  parallel  with  San  Mateo  Creek  to  a 
point  about  a  mile  west  of  the  Town  of  San  Mateo,  then  enters  the 
County  Road  at  the  Town  of  Burlingame,  along  the  County  road  to 

18  the  Town   of  San  Bruno,  follows  the  old  Bay  Road  up  into  the 
University  Mound  Reservoir,  located  in  the  Southeastern  part  of  the 
City  of  San  Francisco,  at  an  elevation  of  165  feet  above  city  base. 
At  a  pumping  station  known  as  the  Millbrae  Pumps  (indicated  by  a 
dark  blue  circle  on  "Exhibit  3")  there  is  a  connection  between  the 
44-inch  Crystal  Springs  pipe  line  to  the  pumping  station.    The  pump- 
ing station  is  supplied  with  the  Crystal  Springs  water  and  also  with 
the  water  from  Alameda,  which  is  connected  with  the  Crystal  Springs 
pipe  line.    The  Millbrae  pump  forces  the  water  into  the  San  Andres 
44-inch  pipe   (light  green  on  "Exhibit  3").     Crystal  Springs  and 
Alameda  water  is  thus  delivered  into  the  College  Hill  Reservoir  or 
to  the  Central  pumping  station.    The  Crystal  Springs  water  by  being 
pumped  into  the  San  Andres  pipe  line  can  fill  either  of  those  conduits. 

19  The  water  in  the  Merced-Baden  pipe  line  can  also  be  sent  to  the 
Merced  pump  and  into  Lake  Honda.     The  Crystal  Springs  pumps 
perform  two  functions;  to  pump  water  from  the  Crystal  Springs 
reservoir  into  a  flume  line    ("Exhibit  3,"  Crystal   Springs  Pump 
flume),  which  water  flows  by  gravity  into  the  San  Andres  Reservoir,  at 
an  elevation  of  446  feet ;  the  object  of  that  is  to  get  a  greater  head  on 
the  water,  San  Andres  being  in  a  higher  elevation  than  Crystal 
Springs.     The  other  function  is  to  take  water  from  the   Crystal 
Springs  Reservoir  when  it  is  less  than  full,  force  that  water  into 

20  Crystal  Springs  44-inch  pipe  line,  and  thus  give  a  larger  supply  than 
would  otherwise  flow  into  that  pipe  line  by  gravity.    It  is  a  booster 
station. 


SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

There  are  two  sources  of  supply  in  Alameda  County,  one  at  Pleas- 
anton  and  the  other  at  Sunol.  The  Pleasanton  source  is  an  artesian 
well  supply.  The  water  comes  from  wells  to  the  pumping  station 
("Exhibit  3"  Pleasanton  Pump  No.  1  &  2).  These  pumps  force  the 
water  into  pipe  line  (light  yellow  marked  "Pleasanton  Pipe  Line") 
and  water  flows  to  point  (indicated  on  "Exhibit  3"  as  Water  Temple) 
where  Pleasanton  water  meets  water  from  Sunol  filter  beds,  and  com- 
bined water  flows  through  Sunol  Aqueduct  and  Alameda  pipe  line  (in- 
dicated in  yellow  "Exhibit  3"),  that  pipe  line  delivering  water  to  Bel- 
mont  pumping  station  (indicated  on  "Exhibit  3"  by  dark  circle)  and 
designated  Belmont  Pump,  which  is  located  near  the  Town  of  San 
Carlos.  The  water  arrives  there  at  about  12  feet  above  high  tide  and 
is  forced  to  an  elevation  sufficiently  high  to  deliver  water  with  the 
Crystal  Springs  water  to  the  University  Mound  Reservoir  at  San 
Francisco  at  an  elevation  of  165  feet.  The  Alameda  pipe  line  is  con- 
nected with  the  Crystal  Springs  pipe  line  at  the  Millbrae  pumping 
station.  By  means  of  this  connection  the  water  can  be  sent  either  to 
the  University  Mound  or  to  College  Hill,  or  to  Lake  Honda  in  the  same  21 
manner  that  the  Crystal  Springs  water  goes  there.  This  pipe  line  from 
Alameda  crosses  underneath  the  bay  at  Dumbarton  Point  by  means  of 
four  sub-marine  pipe  lines.  At  the  westerly  end  of  this  submarine  pipe 
is  located  the  ' '  Ravenswood  Pump ' '  which  is  a  booster  for  increasing 
the  head  in  the  Alameda  pipe  line  from  Ravenswood  Pump  to  Belmont, 
thus  accellerating  the  flow  through  the  pipe  line  and  increasing  the 
supply.  The  Pleasanton  pumps  put  pressure  in  the  conduits  and  also 
draw  water  from  the  wells.  These  wells  flow  probably  two  or  three 
million  gallons  daily  without  the  aid  of  the  pumps.  The  Alameda  pipe 
line  is  not  all  pipe  line.  The  upper  end  is  a  series  of  tunnels  and  flumes  22 
from  the  Sunol  filter  beds  to  a  screen  tank  east  of  the  Town  of  Niles. 
From  there  to  Belmont  pumping  station  the  conduit  is  a  36-inch  pipe 
all  the  way,  except  at  the  crossing  of  the  bay,  where  there  are  two 
16-inch  and  two  22-inch  sub-marine  pipes.  From  Belmont  Pumping 
Station  to  Burlingame  this  is  36-inch  pipe  and  from  Burlingame  to 
Millbrae  pumping  station  the  pipe  line  is  54  inches  in  diameter.  The 
length  of  the  sub-marine  pipe  across  the  bay  is  about  6300  feet,  and  the 
character  of  the  conduit  from  the  Pleasanton  wells  to  the  water  temple 
is  wrought  iron  pipe  30  inches  in  diameter.  The  water  is  collected  at 
the  Sunol  filter  beds  as  follows :  The  filter  bed  is  a  large  gravel  deposit 
located  at  the  easterly  end  of  the  Niles  Canon  at  the  confluence  of  the 
Arroyo  de  Laguna,  San  Antonio  and  Alameda  Creeks.  The  waters 
from  Calaveras  Creek,  Alameda  Creek,  San  Antonio  and  Arroyo  de 
Laguna  supply  the  gravel  beds ;  in  those  gravel  beds  is  located  a  series 
of  concrete  lined  tunnels,  perforated  with  small  pipes  iy2  and  2  inches 
in  diameter.  The  water  flows  into  the  concrete  galleries  known  as  the 
Sunol  Filter  Galleries  through  these  small  pipes,  thence  through  a  con-  23 
crete  lined  tunnel  under  the  Sunol  Valley  down  to  the  Sunol  Dam,  and 


Sharon 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

there  enters  the  Sunol  Aqueduct  and  Alameda  pipe  line.  The  Arroyo 
de  Laguna  comes  from  the  Pleasanton  Valley  down  to  Sunol.  The 
Alameda  Creek  is  usually  known  as  that  part  of  the  stream  which  runs 
to  Sunol  and  down  to  the  bay,  and  also  from  Sunol  up  to  the  confluence 
of  the  upper  Alameda  and  the  Calaveras  Creek.  Some  times  the  por- 
tion of  the  stream  from  Sunol  up  to  the  confluence  is  called  Calaveras 
Creek,  and  some  times  Alameda  Creek,  and  above  that  confluence  we 
have  the  confluence  of  the  tributaries  known  as  Upper  Alameda  Creek 

24  coming  in  from  the  east,  while  Calaveras  Creek  is  a  tributary  which 
comes  in  on  the  west  side.    Calaveras  Creek  also  has  a  tributary  known 
as  Arroyo  Honda.    The  San  Antonio  comes  into  the  Calaveras  or  some 
times  Alameda  about  a  mile  above  the  Sunol  Dam. 

Introduces  map  entitled  "Water  District  Map"  of  the  distribu- 
tion system,  City  of  San  Francisco.  It  is  intended  to  show  the  pipe 
system  in  the  city  with  particular  relation  to  the  sources  from  which 
the  water  is  distributed,  the  distribution  pipes  being  indicated  in  black 
lines.  It  is  accurate  in  that  respect.  Map  admitted  in  evidence  as 
"Complainant's  Exhibit  4".  The  district  colored  yellow  is  that  por- 

25  tion  of  San  Francisco  which  is  supplied  through  the  distribution  pipe 
leading  from  University  Mound  Reservoir  at  an  elevation  of  165  feet 
above  city  base,  and  is  known  as  the  low  service,  being  low  in  elevation. 
College  Hill  Reservoir,  the  next  highest  portion  in  San  Francisco  in 
elevation  is  shown  in  pink,  elevation  255  ft.  above  city  base.     Lake 
Honda  Reservoir,  elevation  365  feet,  supplies  the  next  highest  eleva- 
tion in  San  Francisco,  district  served  indicated  in  light  blue.     Next 
highest  elevation  is  supplied  from  the  Clay  Street  tank  and  Presidio 
Heights  tank  at  an  elevation  of  400  feet  above  city  base.     Districts 

26  supplied  colored  brown.     The  Black  Point  pumps  draw  their  sup- 
ply from  University  Mound  Reservoir,  and  then  pump  it  into  the  Clay 
Street  tank  and  Presidio  Heights  tank.    Highest  source  of  supply  is 
known  as  the  Clarendon  Heights  District,  colored  purple,  and  is  sup- 
plied by  the  Clarendon  Heights  tank,  located  on  easterly  slope  of  the 
Twin  Peak  Ridge  at  an  elevation  of  600  feet  above  city  base.     This 
tank  is  supplied  with  water  by  Clarendon  Heights  pumping  station 
located  at  Seventeenth  and  Pond  Streets.    The  pumping  station  is  sup- 
plied in  turn  by  a  pipe  line  from  the  low  service  indicated  yellow  and 
supplied  by  the  University  Mound  Reservoir.     The  elevation  of  the 
pump  at  Clarendon  Heights  is  about  100  feet.    The  water  is  forced  to 
600  feet  above  city  base.    The  color  deep  blue  is  the  district  supplied 
from  the  Potrero  Heights  Reservoir,  which  is  supplied  from  the  Lake 
Honda  Reservoir  through  pipe  line  over  Twenty-first  and  Twenty- 
second  Streets.    The  Potrero  Heights  Reservoir  is  located  at  Twenty- 
second  and  Wisconsin  Streets  at  an  elevation  of  300  feet.    A  small  dis- 
trict adjoining  the  Potrero  Heights  Reservoir  colored  orange  is  sup- 
plied by  a  small  wooden  tank,  which  is  in  turn  supplied  from  the 
Potrero  Heights  Reservoir  by  means  of  a  small  electric  centrifugal 

6 


SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

pump.  Light  green  represents  district  supplied  from  Lombard  Street 
Reservoir  connected  with  Lake  Honda  system,  and  supplied  from  the 
Lake  Honda  Reservoir.  "Water  flows  by  gravity  into  the  Lombard 
Street  Reservoir  at  an  elevation  of  303  feet,  and  from  there  is  delivered 
by  gravity  to  the  district  colored  green.  The  light  green  district  is 
really  a  part  of  the  Lake  Honda  system.  The  University  Mound  dis-  28 
trict  is  known  in  the  company's  water  records  as  the  low  service  and 
is  indicated  in  yellow.  Pink  indicates  College  Hill  District  because 
supplied  by  College  Hill  Reservoir.  Blue  indicates  Lake  Honda  Dis- 
trict, and  in  the  company's  records  comprises  the  district  shown  in 
brown,  supplied  from  the  Clay  Street  and  Presidio  Heights  tank ;  com- 
prises the  district  supplied  by  the  Lombard  Street  Reservoir  is  indi- 
cated in  green  and  it  comprises  the  district  colored  dark  blue,  being 
supplied  from  the  Potrero  Heights  Reservoir.  The  district  colored 
orange  is  supplied  also  from  the  Potrero  Heights  Reservoir.  The  dark 
blue  district  bordering  on  Pacific  Ocean  is  supplied  from  the  pipe 
system  of  the  Lake  Honda  District.  Water  is  delivered  into  two 
wooden  tanks,  one  at  Forty-sixth  Avenue  and  Anza  Street,  known  as 
Meyer  tank,  elevation  about  120  feet  above  tide;  the  other  as  Ocean 
Side  tank,  located  Forty-first  Avenue  and  Lincoln  Way.  These  tanks 
break  the  pressure  which  would  be  excessive  on  these  low  districts. 

Identifies  "Plaintiff's  Exhibit  5"  called  pavement  map  showing  29-30 
distributing  system  in  the  City  of  San  Francisco.  This  is  a  correct 
map.  The  pipe  lines  of  the  S.  V.  W.  Co.  are  indicated  by  black  lines, 
the  other  colors  indicate  the  different  kinds  of  pavement;  blue  indi- 
cates basalt  on  sand  pavement;  yellow  basalt  on  concrete  pavement; 
vermillion  basalt  with  grout  pavement;  dark  yellow  bitumen  on  con- 
crete; red  bitumen  on  concrete  with  binder  pavement;  sepia  indi- 
cates oiled  macadam;  brown  indicates  macadam;  green  indicates 
cobble  pavement;  purple  indicates  brick  pavement.  Pipe  lines  indi- 
cated without  any  coloring  is  evidence  there  is  no  pavement  on  the 
street. 

Witness  introduces  sub-soil  map,  which  is  a  map  of  the  dis-  30-31 
tribution  system,  and  likewise  shows  the  pipe  lines  of  the  company 
in  small  black  lines.  The  various  colors  show  the  different  characters 
of  the  soil,  formation  in  which  the  pipes  of  the  distribution  system  are 
laid.  This  map  was  prepared  in  conjunction  with  the  city  officials. 
It  has  been  agreed  to  by  Mr.  Ransom  of  the  City  Engineer's  office 
for  the  city,  and  by  Mr.  Elliott  for  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Com- 
pany, marked  as  "Plaintiff's  Exhibit  6".  The  colors  on  this  map 
entitled  as  sub-soil  map  of  distribution  system,  etc.,  indicate  the  dif- 
ferent characters  of  soils.  The  soil  known  as  sandy  soil  is  indicated 
in  yellow.  The  sandy  clay  soil  is  indicated  in  green;  the  hard  clay 
in  brown;  the  soft  rock  in  red;  the  hard  rock  in  blue. 

Witness  introduces  traffic  map.     This  map  graphically  portrays        32 
the  difference  between  the  various  streets,  in  the  difficulty  of  con-        33 


SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

struction,  owing  to  the  obstruction  of  congested  traffic,  other  con- 
duits and  matters  of  that  sort.  This  map  was  prepared  by  Mr. 
M.  M.  O 'Shaughnessy,  City  Engineer,  in  December,  1913.  The  data 
that  is  presented  here  with  reference  to  districts  1,  2  and  3  were 
agreed  to  by  Mr.  Ransom,  of  the  City  Engineer's  office,  for  the  city, 
and  Mr.  Elliott  for  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Co.  As  to  the  traf- 
fic conditions,  the  city  was  divided  into  three  districts  known  as 
districts  1,  2  and  3.  District  1  is  indicated  on  the  map  in  solid  dark 
lines;  that  is  the  heavy  traffic  and  numerous  underground  obstruc- 
tions, and  includes  the  most  congested  portions  of  the  commercial 
and  business  districts.  District  No.  2  shown  on  the  map  in  broken 
lines  as  the  lighter  traffic,  and  not  many  underground  obstructions, 
and  represent  conditions  more  favorable  than  district  1,  and  less 
favorable  than  district  3.  As  regards  the  laying  of  water  mains,  the 
remaining  portion  of  the  City  of  San  Francisco  was  not  symbolized 
at  all  as  regards  traffic  conditions,  and  is  known  as  District  3.  Dis- 
trict 3  has  light  or  no  traffic,  and  no  underground  obstructions,  and 
includes  the  outlaying  residence  districts  of  the  city,  marked  as 
"Plaintiff's  Exhibit  7".  There  are  sewers  and  pipes  in  some  of  Dis- 
trict 3. 

34  Introduces  volume  of  maps  headed  "Maps  of  Real  Estate,  Rights 
of  Way,  and  Riparian  Rights,  Spring  Valley  Water  Co.,  December 
31,  1913".     These  maps  were  prepared  under  my  supervision.     They 
correctly  set  forth  the  properties  of  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Co., 
which  they  purport  to  cover.     These  maps  are  furnished  to  the  city. 
The  lands  are  sub-divided  and  indicated  by  colors,  also  each  sub- 
division is  numbered.      The  sub-divisions  represent  the  parcels   of 
land  acquired  by  the  company  from  different  owners,  and  each  par- 
cel was  acquired  from  different  owners  at  different  times.     Offered 
in  evidence  as  "Plaintiff's  Exhibit  8". 

Introduces  volume  entitled  "Plans  of  some  important  structures, 
excluding  distribution  pipe  system,  Spring  Valley  Water  Co.,  Decem- 
ber 31,  1913".  This  volume  was  prepared  under  my  supervision, 

35  and  is  correct,  and  purports  to  set  forth  the  plans  of  the  important 
structures  of  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Co.  outside  of  the  distribution 
system. 

These  plans  were  furnished  to  the  city's  representatives,  but  in 
larger  scale.  This  volume  offered  in  evidence  as  "Plaintiff's  Exhibit 
9".  Introduces  profile  of  the  works  of  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Co. 
showing  the  various  elevations  of  the  reservoirs  and  pipe  lines.  This 
composite  profile  represents  the  relative  distances  in  miles,  and  the 
elevations  above  sea  level  in  feet,  of  the  different  city  reservoirs;  the 
routes  of  the  various  pipe  lines  leading  into  the  city  of  San  Fran- 
cisco of  the  supply  reservoirs,  and  the  diversions  and  the  control 

36  works  in  the  Peninsula  and  Alameda  systems,  including  in  the  eleva- 
tion the  proposed  reservoirs  of  San  Antonio,  Calaveras,  and  Arroyo 

8 


Sharon 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

Valle.  Arroyo  Valle  height  of  proposed  reservoir  800  feet;  650 
feet  height  of  the  proposed  dam  site;  Calaveras  altitude  800  feet 
for  the  surface  of  the  reservoir  when  completed.  The  Pleasanton 
gravels  at  a  height  of  about  320  feet.  The  Pleasanton  30-inch  pipe 
line  has  the  relative  elevations  and  distances  along  it  indicated  by  a 
black  line.  Height  of  the  reservoir  at  San  Antonio  450  feet.  The 
Pilarcitos  supply  from  the  west  side  comes  in  at  something 
over  800  feet.  Height  of  Pilarcitos  Dam  is  just  below  700  37 
feet;  offered  in  evidence  as  "Plaintiff's  Exhibit  10".  An  in- 
ventory of  the  properties  of  the  company  has  been  prepared 
as  of  December  31,  1913,  and  checked  with  the  representatives 
of  the  city,  and  agreed  to.  It  includes  the  quantities  which 
were  computed  by  the  representatives  of  the  city,  and  also  by 
the  representatives  of  the  company,  also  includes  structures  and 
lands.  This  volume  offered  in  evidence.  Referring  to  the  inventory  38-39 
and  to  the  maps  of  real  estate,  rights  of  way,  etc.,  explanation  is 
made  of  the  connection  between  the  paging  in  this  volume  of  maps 
and  the  number  of  the  particular  parcels  of  land  with  the  inventory 
as  printed.  Explanation  is  also  made  as  to  how  to  run  from  one  of 
these  volumes  to  the  other  to  establish  the  connection  between  them. 
Introduces  a  bound  volume  headed  "Normal  capacities  of  plant,  40 
population,  vital  statistics,  water  consumption,  pumping  station 
equipment,  assessed  valuation,  etc.,  Spring  Valley  Water  Co.,  Decem- 
ber 31,  1914".  I  prepared  this  volume,  and  it  correctly  sets  forth 
the  matters  that  are  therein  set  forth,  offered  separately  as  "Exhibit 
12-a,  12-b,  12-c,  etc.  The  first  page  is  a  schematic  diagram  show- 
ing the  relative  locations  and  capacities  and  elevations  of  the  storage 
reservoirs  at  Pilarcitos,  San  Andres,  and  Crystal  Springs,  and  of  the 
proposed  reservoir  Calaveras,  San  Antonio,  Arroyo  Valle,  the  pump- 
ing stations  at  Pleasanton  and  their  connections  with  the  system  by  a 
30-inch  pipe  line  to  Sunol  as  shown,  as  well  as  the  connection  between 
the  Sunol  filter  beds,  with  the  Niles  aqueduct  and  screen  tank;  the 
Niles  screen  tank  is  shown  with  reference  to  the  pipe  line  leaving  the 
Belmont  pumps,  and  from  Belmont  pumps  to  its  connection  with 
the  Crystal  Springs  pipe  line  at  Millbrae  pumps.  The  pipe  line  from 
Crystal  Springs  Reservoir  is  also  shown  and  followed  through  to  its 
connection  with  the  Alameda  pipe  at  Millbrae  pumps.  Briefly,  this 
is  a  diagram  of  the  system  showing  the  various  sources  of  supply  and 
conduits  leading  from  them  to  the  main  distribution  reservoirs  within 
the  City  of  San  Francisco.  It  shows  the  pumping  station  and  the 
size  of  the  conduits  and  the  inter-connection  between  the  various 
pipes  of  the  system.  The  single  circle  represents  the  reser- 
voirs that  are  at  present  developed.  The  double  circle  represents  the 
proposed  reservoirs.  There  is  no  connection  between  Portola  and 
Crystal  Springs  Reservoir.  The  Portola  Reservoir  is  not  used  in 
connection  with  San  Francisco.  Admitted  as  "Plaintiff's  Exhibit  41 

9 


Sharon 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

The  sheet  on  the  second  page  is  entitled  "Peninsula  Pipe  Lines". 
It  is  a  schematic  profile  of  the  pipe  lines  from  the  Peninsula  reser- 
voirs into  the  City  of  San  Francisco.  It  shows  in  profile  what  is 
shown  in  plan  on  exhibit  12-a,  admitted  as  "Plaintiff's  Exhibit 
12-b".  Sheet  3  is  a  photographic  reproduction  of  lithographic  print 
of  a  map  entitled  "Map  of  property  of  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Co., 
August  14,  1914";  the  properties,  real  estate  holdings,  and  riparian 
rights,  and  the  reservoirs  are  shown  on  this  map.  The  second  part  of 
the  legend  crossed  out,  offered  in  evidence  as  "Plaintiff's  Exhibit 
12-c",  and  marked  "Plaintiff's  Exhibit  12-c".  The  next  page  is  a 
small  blue  print  entitled  "Drainage  areas  Spring  Valley  Water  Co." 
Offered  as  "Plaintiff's  Exhibit  12-d".  This  map  was  prepared  by  Mr. 

42  I.  E.  Flaa.    I  did  not  prepare  it  myself.    It  is  a  convenient  map  on  a 

43  small  scale,  indicating  the  boundary  lines  and  the  areas  of  the  various 
drainage  areas.     Those  drainages  are  also  shown  on  these  other  maps 
and  were  introduced  this  morning,  for  ^instance,   Exhibit  2.      The 
drainage  of  the  area  tributary  to  the  Pleasanton,   Livermore  Val- 
ley is  stated  in  this  small  map  as  258.34  square  miles,  that  is  not 
shown  in  figures  in  Exhibit  No.  2,  the  boundaries  of  the  drainage 
however,  are  shown  on  Exhibit  2.  Marked  "Plaintiff's  Exhibit  12-d". 

44  The  next  map  is  a  map  entitled  "Rainfall  Distribution,  Alameda 
System,  Spring  Valley  Water  Co.,  April  14,  1914".     The  map  itself 
was   compiled   from   United   States   Geological    Survey   Topographic 
Sheets,  simply  for  the  purpose  of  indicating  on  this  map  the  boun- 
daries of  watershed  lines  and  the  creeks.     The  dark,  heavy  lines  and 
the  dotted  lines  represent  isohyetose  or  lines  of  equal  rainfall,  as  was 
determined  from  a  number  of  gauging  stations  which  are  shown  on 
the  map  and  numbered.     From  the  records  of  these  rainfall  stations 
the  computations  were  made  which  indicated  in  our  judgment  the 
lines  shown  on  the  map.    Some  of  the  gauging  stations,  at  Mt.  Hamil- 
ton, maintained  by  the  Lick  Observatory,  and  others,  viz.,  at  railroad 
stations  of  the  Southern  Pacific  Company.     Base  stations  were  sta- 

44-45  tions  from  which  there  were  the  longest  records  of  seasonal  rainfall 
obtainable  which  were  used  in  connection  with  the  San  Francisco 
rainfall.  Example:  Rainfall  was  kept  at  San  Francisco,  and  record 
is  available  for  over  sixty  years.  At  Lick  Observatory,  Livermore, 
San  Jose  and  other  places,  rainfall  records  kept  from  thirty  to  forty 
years,  perhaps.  Found  a  certain  relation  existed  in  the  forty  years 
rainfall  of  these  various  stations,  with  the  rainfall  for  corresponding 
forty  years  at  San  Francisco  and  for  running  back  records  of  the  other 
rainfall  stations  to  see  how  many  dry  years,  and  when  they  did 
occur,  applied  that  ratio  which  we  found  to  exist  in  the  forty  years 
to  the  San  Francisco  record  in  order  to  expand  the  Lick  Observatory, 
Livermore,  and  other  records  back  to  a  sixty  period. 

Gauging  stations  maintained  by  the  company  are  indicated  by 
solid  circles  surrounded  by  a  ring,  and  the  stream  gauging  station, 

10 


Sharon 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

indicated  by  a  solid  circle,  stream  gauging  station  having  automatic 
recording  gauge  indicated  by  star.  45 

This  map  was  prepared  from  data  obtained  from  all  these 
stations. 

Offered  in  evidence  as  "Plaintiff's  Exhibit  12-e". 

CROSS-EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  STEINHART. 

The  gauging  taken  at  the  primary  station  at  San  Francisco  is 
not  shown  in  and  of  itself.  The  gaugings  taken  at  these  recording 
stations,  for  instance,  Town  of  Livermore,  is  shown  on  the  table  to 
have  extended  from  1871-72  to  1913-14,  that  is  43  years.  Station 
No.  2  is  at  Pleasanton,  about  where  Pleasanton  pumping  station  is. 
Explains  designations  Al.  (Alameda),  A.  C.  (Alameda  Creek),  S.  A. 
(San  Antonio),  A.  P.  (Arroyo  Positos),  A.  M.  (Arroyo  Mocho),  46-47 
T.  C.  (Tassajero  Creek). 

Station  2  located  about  where  Pleasanton  pumping  station  is, 
is  kept  by  Spring  Valley  Water  Co.,  records  there  consecutively  for 
fifteen  years  from  1899-1900  to  1913-14. 

Station   3   is  down   by   Niles,   maintained  by   Southern   Pacific 
Railroad   Company.     Records  published  in  U.   S.  Weather  Bureau        48 
reports,  and  extend  from  1886-87  to  1913-14.     These  figures  are  not 
checked,  but  simply  taken  as  reported  by  United   States  Weather 
Bureau. 

Station  4  is  at  Sunol,  maintained  by  Spring  Valley  Water  Co., 
record  extends  from  1889-90  to  1913-14.  Station  5  at  Town  of  Liver- 
more  maintained  by  Southern  Pacific  Company,  record  obtained, 
from  U.  S.  Weather  Bureau,  not  checked  by  Spring  Valley  Water 
Co.;  record  there  from  1871-72  to  1913-14.  Station  No.  6,  I  don't 
see  that  now,  I  do  not  run  across  Station  No.  6.  Station  No.  7, 
located  at  Calaveras.  Maintained  by  Spring  Valley  Water  Co. 
Record  extends  from  1874-75  to  1913-14.  Station  No.  21  located  at  49 
Mt.  Hamilton,  Lick  Observatory.  Figures  obtained  from  U.  S. 
Weather  Bureau  Reports.  Records  extend  from  1881-2  to  1913-14. 
Station  101  is  near  headwaters  of  Alamo  Creek.  A  farmer  reports 
to  the  Company  weekly  the  rainfall  record  there.  Record  extends 
over  period  of  two  seasons  only,  1912-13  and  1913-14.  No  check 
made  of  these  records.  The  company  has  accepted  the  reports  of 
the  observer.  Station  102  is  in  the  Tassajero  Region.  Records  obtained 
same  as  at  Alamo.  Reports  accepted  without  checking.  The  other 
stations  shown  are  kept  by  farmers  or  other  persons,  the  data  of 
which  is  accepted  by  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Co.  and  not  checked  50 
against  the  gaugings.  These  gauging  stations  are  on  the  different 
streams  tributary  to  the  gravel  beds,  and  tributary  to  the  different 
streams  about  there. 

Explanation  of  column  headed  "65  year  expanded  mean"  rep- 
resents: By  comparison  with  the  secondary  base  stations  we  ex- 

11 


Sharon 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

tended  the  records  of  these  stations  that  are  shown  here,  numbered 
from  1  up  to  24,  but  not  consecutively,  back  to  the  65  year  mean,  for 
the  purpose  of  determining  annually  the  periods  of  drought  and  exces- 

51  sive  winters,  to  see  whether  in  making  an  analysis  of  what  the  prob- 
able yield  of  the  sources  would  be,  about  when  the  drought  would 
occur,  as  indicated  from  the  rainfall  record. 

The  secondary  base  stations  covered  about  40  years  from  1871 
to  1913,  that  is  43  years.  This  was  extended  over  a  65  year  period 
by  comparison  with  the  rainfall  in  San  Francisco,  and  then  each 
one  of  these  streams,  gauging  or  rainfall  stations  the  data  was  taken 
from  for  a  limited  period  of  time  and  extended  over  the  same  period 
on  the  same  type  of  average,  using  the  average  of  the  six  recording 
stations  in  the  immediate  vicinity  here.  I  should  have  said  seven 

52  secondary  stations.    The  Isohyetose  lines  represent  the  average  rainfall 
as  determined  from  these  stations  for  the  65  year  mean,  and  are  rep- 
resented in  column  4. 

The  report  of  1914  and  1912,  whatever  difference  would  exist 
there  would  be  because  the  two  years  added  to  the  report  of  1912 
made  the  average  a  little  bit  different.  At  many  of  these  stations  we 
have  observations  for  only  two  years,  accordingly  when  comparison 
is  made  of  the  average  of  those  two  years  with  the  65  years  expanded 
mean,  you  may  get  quite  a  difference. 

The  legend  in  the  lower  left  hand  corner,  "Watershed  Sub- 
divisions; Calaveras,  San  Antonio,  Arroyo  Valle,  Upper  Alameda, 

53  Sunol  Drainage,  Livermore  total  catchment  area";  was  determined 
from  the  topographic  maps  published  by  the  U.  S.  Geological  Survey, 
and  was  measured  off  by  employees  of  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Co. 
in  the  Engineering  Department,  for  the  purpose  of  checking. 

The  meaning  given  to  "Catchment  Area"  in  determining  the 
extent  of  the  Catchment  Area  was  from  the  crest  of  the  mountains  or 
the  dividing  lines  which  would  afford  drainage  to  the  reservoirs  or 
to  a  common  point  or  outlet  of  a  valley. 

The  second  column,  entitled  "1914,  Areal  Rainfall  Column", 
is  deduced  from  the  records  of  the  various  rainfall  stations  had  for 
the  year  1914.  To  get  at  that  figure  we  chose  all  the  rainfall  sta- 
tions shown  in  the  legend  on  the  top  of  the  page  where  we  had  those 

54  records  for  the  year  1914. 

In  determining  the  rainfall  record  for  Calaveras  other  stations 
would  be  used  than  for  determining  the  rainfall  in  San  Antonio,  but 
which  ones  are  not  indicated  on  this  map.  I  have  not  the  record 
with  me  to  show  what  stations  were  actually  used,  but  take  for 
instance  Calaveras ;  the  records  of  the  stations  would  be  taken  from 
those  in  the  vicinity  of  the  drainage  area,  either  within  or  in  close 
proximity  to  the  drainage  area. 

The  two  series  of  isohyetose  lines,  one  solid,  and  the  other 
broken,  shows  the  difference  in  the  area  rainfall  or  the  equal  distri- 

12 


Sharon 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

bution  of  rainfall  due  to  the  introduction  into  the  table  of  two  dry 
years. 

Offered  in  evidence  as  "Plaintiff's  Exhibit  12-e". 

(Objected  to  as  immaterial,  irrelevant,  and  incompetent,  and  as        55 
hearsay).    Went  in  with  that  objection  appearing  on  its  face. 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION   CONTINUED   BY  MR.    OLNEY. 

Only  method  of  checking  reports  sent  in  by  farmers  is  only  in  a        56 
general  way  by  comparison  with  reports  that  come  in  from  adjoining 
stations,  and  that  was  done,  or  to  actually  make  the  gauging  a  second 
time  as  a  check  after  the  observer  had  reported  it  and  that  cannot 
be  done  after  the  rain  has  fallen  and  has  passed  away. 

The  next  map  is  entitled  "Kun  Off  Distribution,  Alameda  Sys- 
tem, S.  V.  W.  Co.,  1914."  Similar  to  other  map  just  referred  to 
entitled  the  rainfall  distribution,  except  that  tabulations  shown  here 
show  seasonal  runoff  measured  at  the  various  stations  recorded  in  the 
table  and  for  the  years  shown,  the  observations  being  made  by  em- 
ployees of  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Company  and  in  recent  years 
checked  by  engineers  from  the  City  Engineer's  Office,  to  extent  of 
determining  the  proper  factors  or  rating  curves  to  be  used  in  determ-  57 
ining  the  flow  through  the  season. 

CROSS-EXAMINATION  BY  MR.    STEINHART. 

The  Brightside  Weirs  are  on  aqueduct  leading  from  the  Sunol 
Dam  down  the  Niles  Canyon  to  the  screen  house  at  Niles,  and  are 
about  half  way  down  the  canyon  at  the  outlet  of  the  first  long  tunnel 
from  Sunol  Dam  about  7500  feet  west  thereof.  It  measures  the 
water  delivered  through  the  Alameda  pipe  line  to  Belmont  pumps. 
I  never  heard  of  any  discussions  as  to  the  correctness  of  that  weir  58 
measurement.  I  think  the  conditions  there  are  ideal. 

The  records  over  the  Sunol  Dam  were  based  upon  a  rating  curve 
made  during  the  two  years  1913  and  1914  of  the  flow  in  Alameda 
Creek  just  upstream  from  the  dam.  The  rating  curve  was  calibrated 
with  the  discharge  in  Alameda  Creek,  as  determined  by  the  current 
meter  measurements.  We  have  a  complete  record  of  the  gage  heights  59 
over  the  Sunol  Dam,  and  by  applying  to  those  gage  heights  the  quan- 
tity of  water  as  found  or  determined  by  this  rating  curve,  we  got  the 
quantity  of  water  that  corresponds  to  those  gage  heights.  The 
record  as  to  discharge  of  Alameda  Creek  extends  over  a  period  from 
1900  to  1914.  We  have  the  actual  records  of  the  gage  heights  and 
the  heads  on  the  weir  from  this  period  1900  to  1914  at  both  points. 
-  By  gage  heights,  I  mean  the  gage  as  corresponding  to  a  certain 
reference  point.  The  rating  curve  established  by  current  meter 
measurements  for  two  years  1912-1913  is  used  to  determine  the  quan- 
tity of  water  at  those  gage  heights.  The  quantity  of  water  at  that 

13 


Sharon 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

60  gage  height  determined  at  that  time  was  found  by  determining  with 
the  current  meter  the  velocity  of  water  in  various  sections  in  the 
creek  and  applying  the  mean  velocity  to  the  mean  area  and  thus 
determining  the  cubical  contents.    I  think  the  company  used  a  Price 
current  meter;  the  results  were  checked  by  Mr.  Bartel  of  the  City 
Engineer's  Office.    We  determined  from  those  current  meter  meas- 
urements of  1912  and  1913  the  rating  curve  which  applied  to  the 
flow  over  the  dam  corresponding  to  certain  gage  heights.     It  was 
merely  a  matter  of  applying  the  gage  heights  to  the  rating  table  to 
determine  the  quantity  and  it  is  as  accurate  as  may  be  had.      In  1912 
the  City  Engineer  was  making  some  investigations  of  various  water 

61  supplies  for  the  City  of  San  Francisco  and  in  the  final  report  which 
is  made  on  the  various  systems  which  had  been  investigated  some 
doubt  was  cast  upon  the  accuracy  of  the  records  of  the  quantities  of 
water  which  actually  wasted  down  the  Alameda  Creek  from  the  621 
square  miles  of  the  Alameda  drainage  area ;  for  the  purpose  of  check- 
ing the  correctness  of  the  rating  table  which  the  Spring  Valley  Water 
Co.  had  used  prior  to  1913  when  these  measures  were  taken  the  City 
Engineer's  Office  co-operated  with  the  Engineering  Department  of 
the  Spring  Valley  Water  Company  in  actually  taking  these  current 
meter  measurements  for  the  purpose  of  determining  the  quantity  of 
water  that  went  over  the  Sunol  Dam  at  certain  gage  heights  on  the 
dam.    In  checking  those  and  adopting  the  rating  curve  which  was 
made  in  co-operation  with  the  Engineering  Department  of  the  City, 
we  found  that  the  total  runoff  extending  from  the  year  1900  up  to 
1914  was  about  4  or  5  per  cent  in  excess  of  that  claimed  by  the  com- 
pany in  1912.     Rating  curve  was  made  in  conjunction  with  city 
officials. 

The  city  officials  and  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Company  agreed 
on  a  rating  curve  to  be  applied  to  the  Sunol  Dam.  Rating  was  de- 
termined from  observations  taken  for  two  years.  Measured  the  tor- 
rential flow  coming  down  the  Alameda  Creek  by  means  of  the  gauge 
height.  1910-11  was  a  very  wet  year. 

63  The  rating  curve  was  actually  made  under  the  direction  of  Mr. 
M.  M.  O 'Shaughnessy,  City  Engineer,  and  F.  C.  Hermann,  who  was 
Chief  Engineer  of  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Company.    Mr.  Grunsky, 
or  Prof.  Marks  and  Prof.  Hyde,  had  nothing  to  do  with  this  rating 
curve.    They  made  a  report  in  1912  to  the  City  of  San  Francisco.    The 
legend  in  the  lower  left-hand  corner    (Exhibit  12-f)   indicates  the 

64  quantity  of  water  that  flowed  in  the  Arroyo  Valle  Station  No.  2  for 
the  year  1906-07,  to  the  years  1913-14.    Also  of  the  quantity  of  water 
that  was  measured  at  Arroyo  Mocho,  Station  No.  1,  for  the  year  1911- 
12,  1913-14  inclusive. 

The  areas  marked  A,  B,  C,  D,  E,  &  F,  are  drainage  areas  tribu- 
tary to  the  various  reservoirs,  to  the  Livermore  Valley,  and  the  Sunol 
filter  beds.  The  subdivision  marked  ' '  A  "  is  the  Calaveras  Water-shed, 

14 


Sharon 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

98.3  square  miles.  That  drainage  area  is  tributary  to  Calaveras  Res- 
ervoir. The  Arroyo  Valle  Water-shed,  that  would  be  the  upper  por- 
tion, the  140.8  square  miles  shown  as  capital  "C"  in  the  sub-division 
here,  is  an  entirely  separate  watershed. 

The  Arroyo  Mocho  is  a  portion  of  the  drainage  to  Livermore  Val- 
ley. Arroyo  Positas  is  a  portion  of  the  drainage  to  the  Livermore 
Valley.  Upper  Alameda  watershed  is  included  in  drainage  "D". 

SECOND  HEARING.  JULY  13,  1915. 

Witness :    J.  J.  SHARON. 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  OLNEY. 

The  page  entitled  "Approximate  Normal  Capacities  of  Plant  of        68 
Spring  Valley  Water  Co.  as  of  December  31,  1913,"  and  headed  in 
the  upper  righthand  corner,  "Lands  Owned,  in  use  and  out  of  use", 
was  prepared  under  my  supervision  and  shows  the  acreages  owned  in 
the  various  counties.    This  table  consists  of  two  pages,  and  correctly        69 
sets  forth  the  acreage  of  lands  owned,  out  of  use  and  in  use.    I  have 
compared  the  lands  of  the  company  with  the  lands  which  the  city 
sought  to  condemn,  as  shown  in  their  complaint,  and  found  that  to 
be  also  correct.     The  page  which  covers  riparian  rights  and  rights 
of  way  is  also  correct. 

Offered  and  admitted  as  "Plaintiff's  Exhibit  12- g".  70 

The  page  headed  "Approximate  Normal  Capacities  of  Plant  of 
Spring  Valley  Water  Co.,  San  Francisco,  California,  Sources  of  Sup- 
ply", shows  in  the  upper  righthand  corner,  "Approximate  Normal 
Capacities  of  Plant".  This  page  sets  forth  in  tabulated  form  the 
physical  details  with  reference  to  elevations,  capacities  and  depths  of 
water  in  the  storage  reservoirs ;  it  also  sets  forth  the  mean  runoff  and 
safe  yield  in  million  gallons  daily  from  the  various  sources  set  forth. 

Referring  to  item  "3e",  "Proposed  Future  Level",  the  elevation 
shown  there  of  overflow,  300  feet,  is  an  error,  and  should  be  333 
feet.  The  acreages  are  also  in  error,  the  1770  acres  will  change  with  71 
the  change  of  elevation  of  the  overflow  as  will  also  the  capacity  in 
million  gallons.  The  item  "3c",  "Proposed  Future  Levels",  is  cor- 
rect, however,  if  the  elevation  of  300  feet  is  taken  as  the  ultimate 
elevation,  but  if  increased  to  333  feet,  then  the  acreage  and  depth 
would  be  correspondingly  changed.  With  this  exception,  the  tabula- 
tion is  correct. 

Offered  in  evidence  as  "Plaintiff's  Exhibit  12-h". 

CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  STEINHART. 

„  This  table  was  set  up  by  Metcalf  from  data  furnished  by  me. 
The  data  in  column  1,  "Tributary  Drainage  Area,  Square  Miles", 
was  obtained  by  making  computations  of  the  area  as  shown  on  the 
United  States  Topographical  Map.  The  seasonal  rainfall  was  ob- 

15 


Sharon 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

tained  from  records  kept  by  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Co.  at  the  vari- 
ous stations  shown  there.  These  I  can  give  only  approximately,  as  I 
have  not  the  records.  At  Pilarcitos  records  were  kept  from  about  1865 
up  to  date,  at  San  Andres  from  about  1868  to  date,  at  Crystal  Springs 

72  these  records  were  kept  at  the  upper  dam  from  about  1875,  and  at  the 
cottage  from  about  1896  or  7,  to  date.    From  the  lower  dam  the  records 
have  been  kept  from  1890  up  to  date.    The  record  which  is  indicated 
as  San  Francisco  record,  and  shown  for  Merced  Lakes,  is  from  the 
U.  S.  Weather  Bureau.    The  Calaveras  record  was  kept  by  the  Spring 
Valley  Water  Co.  from  1874  up  to  date,  and  has  been  kept  at  all 
times.    This  is  the  company's  oldest  record  there.     The  San  Antonio 
records  are  taken  from  an  average  of  a  series  of  stations  in  that  vicin- 
ity, but  I  do  not  remember  what  stations  were  used.     The  City  has 
agreed  with  us  in  regard  to  some  of  these  records,  but  not  for  the  en- 
tire length  of  time.    I  agreed  with  Major  Dockweiler  on  the  rainfall  at 
San  Francisco. 

73  The  Sunol  gravels  are  the  Sunol  filter  beds,  and  the  Livermore 
gravels  constitute  the  artesian  supply  in  the  Livermore  Valley  at 

74  Pleasanton.    The  seasonal  rainfall  is  reached  by  taking  the  record  of 
Sunol  for  the  Sunol  filter  beds,  and  the  rainfall  record  at  Livermore 
for  the  Livermore  gravels.    Thus  there  are  two  sub-divisions  in  that 
single  item  8,  of  underground  sources;  one  is  the  source  at  Sunol, 
the  filter  beds,  the  other  is  the  artesian  basin  at  Pleasanton.     The 
seasonal  rainfall  estimated  in  the  Sunol  gravels  is  22.11,  and  in 
Livermore  15.49.    The  estimate  for  this  latter  is  made  at  the  Town 
of  Livermore. 

Referring  to  the  next  column,  the  elevation  of  overflow,  and  of 
the  bottom  of  reservoir,  indicates  Pilarcitos  to  be  the  high-water,  or 
overflow  elevation;  stone  dam  is  taken  from  actual  figures  as  they 
exist  at  the  present  time ;  San  Andres  the  same ;  the  tunnels  the  same ; 
but  the  Crystal  Springs  is  280  feet,  which  is  the  crest  of  the  overflow. 
The  level  of  the  high-water  mark  maintained  by  bulkheading  the 
waste-way,  is  288.85  feet.  By  proposed  future  level  is  meant  the 
level  to  which  the  dam  can  be  increased  in  height,  thereby  increasing 
the  storage  capacity  of  the  Crystal  Springs  Reservoir.  The  dam  has 
been  built  with  extra  foundations,  and  extra  width  in  the  foundations 
and  throughout,  so  as  to  be  able  to  increase  its  height. 

The  actual  flow  at  the  Merced  Lakes  at  present  is  shown  there. 
The  Calaveras  is  a  proposed  reservoir.  In  taking  the  elevation  of 
overflow  and  bottom  of  reservoirs,  the  dam-site  is  taken  at  the  point 

75  where  the  present  dam  is  being  constructed.    There  have  been  other 
proposed  dam-sites,  the  elevation  of  overflow,  and  bottom  of  reser- 
voirs, of  which  is  the  same  as  in  the  present  dam-site.    This  means 
that  the  dam,  lower  down,  would  have  to  be  a  few  feet  higher  to 
make  up  in  the  slope  of  the  creek  between  the  present  dam-site  and 
one  of  the  lower  site. 

16 


Sharon 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

The  San  Antonio  is  also  a  proposed  reservoir  site.  It  is  to  be 
constructed  at  a  point  a  little  up-stream  from  the  location  of  the 
present  gaging  station,  and  at  a  site  that  has  already  been  explored. 
This  is  indicated  on  "  Exhibit  2".  The  Arroyo  Valle  is  also  a  pro- 
posed dam-site,  which  is  shown  on  "Exhibit  2".  There  is  also  another 
dam-site  further  down-stream,  which  is  indicated  on  "Exhibit  2"  at 
about  Cresta  Blanca,  being  between  3%  and  4  miles  below  the  present 
proposed  dam-site.  76 

The  depth  in  feet  overflow  to  bottom  is  just  the  vertical  distance 
between  the  flow  line  and  the  bottom  of  the  reservoir.  These  compu- 
tations I  made  myself.  The  bottom  of  the  reservoir  means  the  outlet, 
or  just  at  the  base  of  the  dam,  or  low  elevation;  it  may  be  within 
a  few  feet  of  the  bottom  of  the  dam.  In  calculating  unavailable 
water,  I  mean  the  water  that  could  be  taken  out  by  pumping,  if 
needed.  Generally  speaking,  the  outlets  are  pretty  low  in  the  res- 
ervoirs. 

The  next  column  "Water  Surface  Full,  Reservoir  in  Acres", 
represents  the  area  in  acres  flooded  by  water  when  the  reservoir  is 
full  at  the  overflow  elevation  shown  in  the  third  column.  The  capacity 
in  million  gallons  is  figured  from  actual  surveys  of  the  reservoir  site, 
and  the  cubical  contents  determined.  The  surveys  were  all  made  by 
the  Spring  Valley  Water  Co.,  but  I  had  nothing  to  do  with  them.  77 
The  areas  shown  in  the  previous  column  of  "Water  surface  full,  Res- 
ervoir in  acres ' ',  were  checked  over  recently  under  my  direction,  by 
means  of  the  planimeter. 

Referring  to  the  next  column,  "Capacity  in  Million  Gallons", 
further  data  than  what  has  preceded  is  needed  to  determine  cubical 
contents.  That  is  ordinarily  determined  by  making  a  topographical 
survey  indicating  the  contours.  In  all  of  these  cases  this  was  done  at 
five  foot  intervals,  and  interpolating  the  contents  for  each  foot  between 
each  of  these  contours.  Those  surveys  are  shown  in  "Exhibit  9". 

The  next  column,  "Mean  Run-off  Million  Gallons  Daily,  Approx-  78 
imate,"  was  determined  from  the  records  kept  by  the  Spring  Valley 
Water  Co.,  and  includes  the  run-off  for  the  entire  drainage  area  at 
Pilarcitos.  At  San  Andres  it  would  include  the  run-off  for  the  entire 
San  Andres,  and  the  tributary  drainage  area,  which  includes  the 
Davis  Tunnel.  The  same  is  true  in  Crystal  Springs.  In  this  case  the 
run-off  was  determined  from  a  number  of  years  actual  service  of  the 
reservoir,  and  these  are  net  after  a  deduction  for  evaporation  has 
been  made.  It  is  the  net  result  obtained  through  a  long  series  of 
years  in  the  operation  of  the  reservoir.  A  quantity  of  water  drawn 
from  the  reservoirs  and  added  to  the  loss  or  gain  in  the  storage  during 
the  year,  indicated  the  net  run-off  for  that  year.  This  was  the  method 
of  measurement  used. 

The  quantity  run-off  from  the  reservoirs  was  measured  by  draw-        79 
ing  it  off  into  San  Francisco  and  measuring  it  by  weirs.    At  Pilarcitos 

17 


Sharon 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

the  water  was  measured  in  the  San  Mateo  Creek  in  the  flume  and 
weir  box  between  the  outlet  of  tunnel  No.  1  and  inlet  of  tunnel  No.  2. 
At  San  Andres  the  water  taken  from  that  reservoir  is  measured  by  a 
weir  at  the  outlet  of  the  San  Andres,  or  Bald  Hill  Tunnel,  the  outlet 
of  the  tunnel  being  the  inlet  of  the  San  Andres  44-inch  pipe  which 
delivers  the  water  to  San  Francisco.  At  Crystal  Springs  the  water 
is  measured  at  the  weirs  before  it  enters  the  University  Mound  Res- 
ervoir. At  Calaveras  the  water  was  measured  by  run-off  measure- 
ments and  gaugings  taken  in  the  stream  during  the  time  that  water 
was  flowing  at  a  point  about  the  site  of  the  dam  in  the  gorge 
just  below  the  present  dam-site.  This  was  taken  for  a  period 
beginning  in  1898,  and  ending  1914,  and  is  shown  on  "  Exhibit 
12-f"  in  the  table  appearing  in  the  upper  righthand  corner. 
The  measurements  were  made  partially  with  current  meter  meas- 
urements in  the  streams,  and  other  measurements  were  made  with 
what  is  known  as  the  float  measurement  method  in  order  to  de- 
termine surface  velocity.  The  float  measurement  method  is  to  de- 
termine the  surface  velocity  by  means  of  some  buoyant  substance 
which  will  float  on  top  of  the  water,  and  the  time  necessary  to  travel 

80  a  certain  distance  is  then  computed,  and  in  that  way  the  velocity 
of  the  surface  of  the  water  is  determined.     This  method  is  not  so 
accurate  as  current  meter  measurement.     A  method  of  this  kind  is 
subject  to  changes  due  to  the  change  in  the  bed  of  the  stream  caused 
by  floods,  but  I  would  not  say  that  that  would  apply  with  such  great 
force  to  Calaveras  for  the  reason  that  the  stream  bed  is  not  so  likely 
to  change  very  materially,  as  there  is  quite  a  good  deal  of  rock  and 
on  the  sides  the  bed-rock  crops  out  to  the  sides  of  the  creek;  there 
are  small  changes  in  the  bottom,  but  they  are  not  so  very  material. 

81  It  is  true  that  this  method  of  float  measurement  is  inaccurate,  due  to 
the  fact  that  it  depends  entirely  upon  surface  conditions,  upon  the 
expertness  of  the  man  handling  it,  and  to  the  fact  that  the  computa- 
tions depend  entirely  upon  the  nature  and  size  of  the  bed  of  the 
stream,  and  that  the  size  and  nature  of  the  bed  of  the  stream  are 
constantly  changing,  but  if  the  difference  in  the  area  of  the  cross 
section  of  the  stream  was  noted,  then  the  error  is  not  so  great  as  it 
would  be  if  you  did  not  take  that  into  consideration.    It  can  be  noted 
constantly  with  a  reasonable  degree  of  accuracy,  but  it  has  not  been 
noted  in  all  instances.    A  number  of  records  have  been  kept  for  the 
last  two  or  three  years  showing  the  change  in  the  character  of  the 
bed  of  the  stream,  and  also  the  size  of  the  stream.    These  were  taken 
in  conjunction  with  the  City  Engineer's  Department.     I  think  we 
have  some  of  Calaveras  for  the  years  1910-11  and  1912. 

The  San  Antonio  and  Arroyo  Valle  are  given  together  for  the 

82  reason  that  I  think  that  those  reservoirs  might  be  combined  by  a 
tunnel  through  the  hills  from  Arroyo  Valle  to  San  Antonio,  or  they 
could  be  operated  independently;  the  combined  run-off  of  the  two 

18 


Sharon 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

is  approximately  thirty  million  gallons  daily.  The  only  idea  in  com- 
bining them  was  that  the  reservoirs  might  be  combined  by  tunnels  or 
by  pipe  lines  or  something  of  that  sort.  The  data  for  this  was  taken 
from  some  measurements  of  Arroyo  Valle  which  we  had,  as  shown  on 
"Exhibit  12-f "  for  the  years  1904-5  to  1913-14,  and  at  San  Antonio 
for  the  years  1911-12  to  1913-14.  The  records  of  the  run-off  meas- 
urements at  Arroyo  Valle  from  1904-5  to  1907-8  were  float  measure- 
ments and  from  1911-12  to  1913-14  the  measurements  were  made  with 
current  meters  located  at  Cresta  Blanca.  The  accuracy  of  this  meas- 
urement, I  think,  is  subject  to  some  correction,  owing  to  the  gravelly 
nature  of  the  creek,  and  the  existence  of  the  bridge  near  which  the 
meter  was  located,  and  the  fact  that  it  is  at  an  angle.  I  don't  know 
that  it  has  ever  been  proven  that  the  existence  of  the  bridge  there  and  83 
the  fact  that  it  is  at  an  angle  materially  effected  the  accuracy  of  those 
measurements. 

Mr.  Herrmann,  Chief  Engineer  of  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Co., 
had  charge  of  the  matter  of  those  measurements  in  November,  1914. 

The  method  of  measurement  on  the  San  Antonio  was  from  the 
years  1911-12  to  1913-14  the  current  meter  measurement.  The  sta- 
tion, I  think,  was  a  satisfactory  one  for  measurements,  and  I  do  not 
remember  all  the  details  in  connection  with  the  fact  that  the  repre- 
sentatives of  the  city,  and  of  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Co.,  reported 
that  that  station  should  be  changed,  owing  to  the  location  of  trees 
thereon. 

In  order  to  determine  the  amount  of  water  that  was  in  the  reser-  84 
voir,  a  topographical  survey  was  made  of  the  reservoir  site,  and  the 
contents  computed  from  that  survey ;  by  the  use  of  these  figures  in 
connection  with  that  survey,  we  made  a  table  of  the  capacity  corre- 
sponding with  each  foot  on  the  gage  board  of  the  reservoir.  To  de- 
termine the  heights  of  the  water  in  the  reservoir  in  any  one  year,  in 
order  to  get  the  mean  run-off  from  the  catchment  area,  we  have  a 
gauge  board  in  the  reservoir  which  is  read  once  each  day.  This,  I 
should  say,  was  not  so  very  inaccurate,  although  the  measurement 
would  be  affected  by  any  wind  or  any  disturbance  of  the  surface.  A 
mistake  in  reading  that  gauge  measurement  would  not  make  a  great 
difference  in  our  total  computations;  a  mistake  of  an  inch;  for 
example,  on  the  gauge  board  at  Pilarcitos  reservoir,  would  make  a 
difference,  possibly,  of  two  and  one-half  million  gallons,  which,  di-  85 
vided  by  365  days  is  a  very  small  item ;  I  think  we  neglected  that  in 
the  third  or  fourth  decimal  place  in  this  table.  We  take  the  readings 
of  January  1  in  one  year,  and  of  January  1  in  the  succeeding  year, 
and  the  difference  in  the  level  is  the  difference  for  the  entire  year,  so 
that  the  one  inch,  if  there  were  a  mistake  of  that  kind,  would  show  up 
in  the  total  record.  In  this  particular  case  the  determination  is  made 
by  comparing  it  from  July  1  to  July  1. 

Referring  to  column  "Safe  Yield  in  Million  Gallons  Daily",  the 
figure  18.5  represents  the  safe  yield  from  those  reservoirs  after  deduc- 

19 


Sharon 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

tions  from  the  previous  column  has  been  made  for  waste  in  very  wet 
years  from  the  reservoir.  In  the  case  of  Crystal  Springs,  the  amount 
that  is  supplied  from  the  Crystal  Springs  pipe  line  would  be  deducted 
from  the  safe  yield  of  the  Crystal  Springs  reservoir.  In  the  case  of 
the  San  Andres  and  the  Pilarcitos  the  measurements  have  been  made 

86  at  the  reservoirs  so  that  the  withdrawals  along  the  line  are  accounted 
for  in  the  measurements  there.     I  should  have  said  that  from  the 
Crystal  Springs  pipe  line  should  be  deducted  from  the  preceding 
column  in  Crystal  Springs,  and  not  from  the  safe  yield,  as  the  safe 
yield  is  actually  the  measurements  of  the  water  delivered  into  San 
Francisco,  except  from  the  Pilarcitos  and  San  Andres  line,  and  those  of 
very  small  quantities  aggregating,  I  think,  fifty-thousand  gallons  a  day. 

Merced  Lakes  have  no  outside  consumers. 

The  Daly  City  distribution  is  in  the  City  and  County  of  San 
Francisco.  The  present  development  of  the  underground  sources  in- 
cludes the  amount  distributed  from  Sunol  and  Livermore  gravels, 
and  I  think  that  is  the  net  distributed  to  San  Francisco,  and  does  not 
include  the  amount  distributed  to  outside  consumers.  That  measure- 
ment was  taken  at  Brightside  weirs.  That  present  development  in- 
cludes the  development  made  possible  by  the  booster  pumps  at  Ra- 

87  venswood.     That  booster  pump  increased  the  carrying  capacity  of 
the  pipe  line  from  seventeen  million  gallons  daily  to  twenty-one  and 
a  half  to  twenty- two  million  gallons  daily.     There  is  no  measuring 
box  at  Ravenswood,  and  the  total  present  development  is  forty  mil- 
lion gallons  a  day. 

Our  assumed  economic  development  in  the  future  was  prepared 
by  Mr.  Metcalf. 

(Admission  of  exhibit  objected  to  as  immaterial,  irrelevant,  and 
incompetent.) 

Discussion  between  attorneys  in  relation  to  Mr.  Steinhart's  objec- 
tion as  to  the  items,  capacity  in  million  gallons,  and,  the  capacity  of 
reservoirs,  and  suggested  by  Mr.  Olney  that  Spring  Valley  Water  Co. 
would  have  to  produce  the  surveys,  but  it  was  decided  to  be  unneces- 

88  sary  unless  upon  consultation  it  is  deemed  relevant,  and  at  that  time 

89  it  could  be  easily  checked  up  without  having  the  surveys  brought  into 
court. 

"Plaintiff's  exhibit  12-h"  was  admitted  with  the  right  to  re-open 
the  matter  as  regards  the  matter  of  capacity  in  million  gallons  for 
required  proof  of  the  original  surveys,  if  the  City  wants  it. 

90  DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  OLNEY. 

The  reading  of  gauges  at  the  reservoir  are  taken  year  after  year, 
and  in  the  course  of  years  any  inaccuracy  in  these  readings  due  to 
wave  action,  or  anything  of  that  sort,  tend  to  compensate  themselves, 
such  as  the  records  do  in  this  case.  The  records  at  Pilarcitos  reser- 
voir were  taken  by  Mr.  Ebright  for  about  forty  years ;  at  San  Andres 

20 


Sharon 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

they  were  taken  by  Mr.  Sole  for,  I  think,  over  thirty  years,  and  at 
the  lower  Crystal  Springs  dam  they  were  taken  by  a  man  who  is 
there  now,  and  who  has  been  there  since  1890.  If  a  man  had  an  in- 
correct method  of  taking  measurements,  I  think  he  would  be  just  as 
apt  to  read  one  inch  lower  one  year,  and  one  inch  higher  the  next. 

The  next  page  which  appears  in  the  volume  is  simply  a  detail 
of  the  previous  page,  and  those  areas  are  all  represented  on  the  ex- 
hibits which  were  put  in  yesterday,  "Exhibit  1"  and  "Exhibit  2". 

Offered  in  evidence  "Plaintiff's  Exhibit  12-i". 

Referring  to  the  next  page,  that  also  includes  the  detail  of  some        91 
of  the  previous  pages  that  have  already  been  admitted  in  evidence. 

Offered  in  evidence  as  "Plaintiff's  Exhibit  12-j". 

(Here  follows  discussion  by  attorneys  of  various  inaccuracies  in 
certain  exhibits). 

Spring  Valley  Water  Co.  states  its  storage  for  future  develop- 
ment in  Calaveras  is  fifty-three  million  gallons  a  day,  whereas  in 
"Plaintiff's  Exhibit  12-h"  the  capacity  is  given  as  fifty-five  million 
gallons  a  day.  It  is  to  be  determined  which  is  the  correct  figure. 

A  difference  in  area  is  also  noted ;  under  3-b  in  ' '  Exhibit  12 ' ',  the 
present  water  surface  in  Crystal  Springs  Reservoir  is  1443.14  acres. 
This  figure  is  a  Spring  Valley  computation,  in  ' '  Exhibit  12-i ' '  the  area 
for  the  same  height  is  1492.16  acres;  this  is  the  computation  made  by 
the  City  Engineer. 

Then  follows  a  discussion  between  attorneys  on  the  question  of 
which  figure  is  correct.  Mr.  Olney  insisting  that  it  is  a  point  that 
ought  to  be  worked  out  and  settled  and  that  it  is  a  point  capable  of  92 
accurate  determination.  Reference  is  then  made  to  a  discrepancy  in 
the  San  Andres  in  relation  to  the  totals  there  as  between  the  first  three 
items,  Pilarcitos,  San  Andres,  and  Crystal  Springs,  wherein  they 
differ  115.69  acres.  This  has  reference  to  area  high-water  mark  acres 
"Exhibit  12-j".  It  was  explained  that  the  entire  table  in  this  exhibit 
was  worked  up  either  by  or  under  the  direction  of  Mr.  Herrmann, 
whose  initials  are  shown  on  the  top  of  the  page,  and  that  the  witness 
had  nothing  at  all  to  do  with  that  table.  93 

' '  Exhibit  12-j ' '  withdrawn. 

Referring  to  table  entitled  "Capacities  Filter  Plant,  Flumes  and 
Conduits";  this  was  made  by  Mr.  Metcalf  from  figures  submitted  by 
me,  and  is  correct.  It  shows  capacities  of  the  filter  plant,  and  of  the 
various  flumes  and  conduits  of  the  company. 

Offered  in  evidence  as  "Plaintiff's  Exhibit  12-j". 

CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  STEINHART. 

This  tabulation  is  intended  to  show  the  capacity  of  the  pipes, 
conduits  and  flumes.     In  the  Alameda  System,  Sunol  to  Niles  screen 
flume,  is  intended  to  show  the  capacity  of  the  flume  in  the  Sunol  aque-         94 
duct  between  the  tunnels.    The  pipe  running  from  that  flume  is  a  36- 

21 


Sharon 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

inch  pipe,  but  at  the  present  time  has  not  a  capacity  of  thirty-five  to 
forty  million  gallons  a  day.  I  have  never  made  the  computation  to 
ascertain  whether  the  pipe  is  strong  enough  to  carry  that  much  water. 
In  computing  the  total  capacity  I  would  not  compute  into  that  total 
capacity  the  capacity  given  from  Sunol  to  the  Niles  screen  flume,  from 
thirty-five  to  forty  million  gallons  a  day ;  that  was  not  entered  in  the 
total  capacity  for  the  entire  line.  So  far  as  the  entire  line  is  concerned 
in  its  supply  of  water  to  the  Belmont  Pumping  Station,  or  to  the  City 
of  San  Francisco,  that  supply  is  limited  by  the  capacity  of  the  Ala- 

95  meda  pipe  line,  shown  on  this  table  21,000,000  gallons  daily. 

The  capacity  of  the  Sunol  to  Niles  screen  flume  was  determined 
at  thirty-five  to  forty  million  gallons  a  day  by  measurements  made  in 
the  flume  of  the  velocity  of  the  water.  The  capacity  of  the  Alameda 
system  at  the  present  time  is  twrenty-one  million  gallons  a  day.  The 
capacity  from  the  San  Andres  Reservoir  is  the  carrying  capacity  of  the 
44-inch  pipe  line  shown  up  near  the  top  of  the  page  on  this  table  as 
twenty-five  million  gallons  daily.  Our  present  safe  yield  is  only 
eighteen  million  gallons  from  the  Sunol  and  Livermore  gravels.  The 

96  first  item  of  the  Peninsula  system  is  upper  Pilarcitos  to  San  Andres 
flume,  tunnel  and  pipe;  capacity  eighteen  million  gallons  a  day;  this 
is  the  total  capacity  of  that  conduit  measured  by  flume  measurements 
made  in  the  flume  of  the  velocity  of  the  water.     According  to  the 
method  of  preparing  this  table,  the  velocity  of  the  water  is  one  of  the 
things  to  know.     The  area  of  the  water  in  the  flume  is  multiplied  by 
the  velocity  of  the  water  which  gave  the  cubical  contents,  in  cubic 
feet,  which  reduced  to  gallons  gave  gallons  per  minute  or  per  second, 
or  some  other  unit  of  time.     It  was  reduced  in  this  case  to  a  million 
gallons  daily. 

The  velocity  is  determined  by  float  measurements,  not  surface 
float,  but  thin  slits  of  wood  that  were  weighted  to  carry  them  down 
near  the  bottom;  we  submerged  them  at  different  levels  in  the  flume 
and  thereby  got  a  very  close  approximation  to  the  mean  velocity  of 
the  flow.  I  did  that  personally,  and  I  think  put  in  five  across,  and  I 
had  strings  tied  along  the  caps  to  guide  the  channel  of  the  float  so  that 
they  would  not  cross,  or  interfere  with  one  another  in  the  path. 

97  The  San  Andres  44-inch  steel  pipe  to  Baden  was  determined  by  a 
pitometer  measurement  to  show  the  coefficient  which  would  be  applied 
to  that  pipe;  that  coefficient  was  applied  to  the  ordinary  formula  for 
determining  the  velocity  of  the  water  in  the  pipe.    That  was  a  purely 
mathematical  calculation;  the  coefficient  that  was  applied  to  the  for- 
mula was  deduced  from  a  series  of  tests  made  with  a  pitometer  by  Prof. 
LeConte,  of  the  University  of  California,  to  determine  the  velocity  of 
water  in  a  pipe.    When  I  say  that  the  pitometer  test  was  made,  I 
meant  all  the  paraphernalia  that  went  with  it,  taking  the  loss  of  head 
in  the  flow  of  water  through  the  pipe.     Referring  to  the  two  Baden 
pipes,  one  of  these  leaves  Baden,  as  shown  on  ' '  Exhibit  1  and  2 ' ',  and 

22 


Sharon 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

runs  into  College  Hill  Reservoir ;  the  other  one  leaves  Baden,  as  indi- 
cated on  ' '  Exhibit  1  and  2 ' ',  and  is  known  as  the  Baden-Mereed  pipe, 
and  runs  to  the  Central  pumping  station  at  Twenty-third  Avenue  and 
Sloat  Boulevard,  with  connections  from  the  pipe,  as  indicated  on  ' '  Ex- 
hibit 1  and  2",  to  the  Ocean  View  pumping  station,  and  to  the  Lake 
Merced  pumping  station.  The  waters  that  are  put  in  there  run 
through  those  pipes,  going  to  the  Ocean  View  pump,  and  from  there 
to  Lake  Honda. 

That  capacity  would  be  determined  by  the  capacity  of  the  Ocean 
View  pump  and  Lake  Honda  by  the  23-inch,  16-inch  and  30-inch  pipe 
and  flume,  which  is  given  lower  down  as  ten  million  gallons  a  day,  and  98 
then  some  of  the  water  that  is  taken  out  of  the  Baden-Merced  pipe,  or 
eight  million  gallons  at  Central  pump,  is  also  forced  into  the  44-inch 
pipe  just  south  of  the  Lake  Honda  tunnel,  that  has  a  capacity  much 
greater  than  ten  million  gallons  daily. 

By  the  item  Crystal  Springs  on  full  reservoir  without  pumping, 
twenty-two  million  gallons  a  day,  I  mean  that  with  the  reservoir  about 
full  it  gives  the  water  a  head  sufficient  to  force  twenty-two  million 
gallons  daily  through  the  pipe  line  to  University  Mound.  The  pipe 
line  is  capable  of  carrying  more  than  that,  and  by  pumping  it  can  be 
increased. 

(Mr.  Olney  here  interjected  that  the  safe  daily  yield  is  much  be- 
low that,  and  that  this  has  no  reference  to  the  safe  daily  yield. ) 

The  summary  showing  total  approximate  conduit  capacity  to 
College  Hill,  eight  millions,  means  that  through  the  30-inch  pipe  line  99 
to  College  Hill  there  can  be  taken  eight  million  gallons  daily,  at  the 
same  time  that  there  are  eighteen  million  gallons  daily  taken  through 
the  30-inch  branch  to  the  Central  pumping  station  by  the  30-inch  pipe 
line  known  as  the  Baden-Merced  pipe.  That  is  based  upon  the  figure, 
Baden  30-inch  steel  pipe  to  College  Hill  eight  million  gallons  a  day. 

On  "Exhibit  3"  there  is  shown  in  light  green,  from  the  Town  of 
Baden,  the  30-inch  pipe  to  College  Hill,  through  which  eight  million 
gallons  daily  can  be  supplied  at  the  same  time  that  eighteen  million 
gallons  can  be  supplied  through  the  30-inch  Baden-Merced  pipe  to  the 
Central  pumping  station,  Ocean  View  pumps,  or  to  Lake  Merced 
pumps.  That  would  make  below  the  junction  point  of  the  30-inch 
Baden  pipe,  and  the  30-inch  Baden  pipe  to  College  Hill,  twenty-five 
million  gallons  a  day.  The  item  of  eighteen  million  gallons  should  be 
seventeen  million  gallons,  and  the  two  together  should  be  twenty-five 
million  gallons,  as  the  total  capacity  of  the  44-inch  pipe  line,  shown  in 
light  green  on  "Exhibit  3"  from  the  San  Andres  Reservoir  to  the 
Town  of  Baden. 

The  Ocean  View  pumps  are  located  about  at  the  crossing  of  the 
Baden-Merced  pipe  lin«  over  the  suction  line  to  the  Lake  Merced  pump, 
and  the  force  line  from  the  Lake  Merced  pump.  They  are  fed  by  the 
Baden-Merced  line.  The  statement  of  the  capacity  of  the  Baden  pipe  100 


SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

has  reference  to  its  delivery  capacity  to  those  points.  The  Baden  30- 
inch  pipe  to  Ocean  View,  the  Ocean  View  pump  to  Lake  Honda,  and 
the  Central  pump  to  Lake  Honda,  are  different  pipes.  The  capacity 
from  Ocean  View  and  the  Lake  Merced  pump  may  not  be  all  of  the 
water  that  is  supplied  by  the  Baden-Merced  pipe  for  the  reason  that 
the  Lake  Merced  pumps  pump  water  also  out  of  Lake  Merced,  and 
force  it  into  the  pipe  line  shown  in  this  ' '  Exhibit  12-j ' '  as  Ocean  View 
pump  to  Lake  Honda  by  23-inch,  16-inch,  and  30-inch,  and  flume  ten 
million  gallons  a  day.  The  capacity  for  the  Lake  Merced  Reservoir 
is  about  three  million  gallons  a  day,  but  for  the  pumping  station  is 
seven  and  a  half  million  gallons.  This  table  has  not  reference  to 
sources  of  supply,  but  only  to  the  carrying  capacity  of  the  conduit. 

101  Admitted  as  "Plaintiff's  Exhibit  12-j". 

The  next  sheet  is  entitled  ' '  Capacities  Pumping  Stations  ".  I  am 
acquainted  with  the  matter  as  set  forth  in  that  table,  and  it  is  correct. 
Under  the  second  heading,  ' '  From  Low  Service ' ',  is  meant  delivery  at 
low  services  in  the  city,  and  it  is  the  same  district  which  I  described 
yesterday,  and  which  is  called  in  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Co.  records, 
the  University  Mound  District.  The  pumps  which  occur  under  that 
heading  take  the  water  from  the  low  service  distributing  system  and 
pump  it  into  the  reservoirs  that  are  subsequently  stated. 

102  Offered  in  evidence  as  "Plaintiff's  Exhibit  12-k". 

Under  the  heading  "In  Pleasanton  Valley",  the  pumping  sta- 
tions 1,  2  and  3,  have  been  indicated  on  the  maps,  "Plaintiff's  Ex- 
hibit 2".  The  Pleasanton  pump,  Station  No.  1,  is  shown,  and  it  is  also 
designated ;  the  other  two  pumping  stations  are  designated  only  by  two 
small  circles  colored  in  solidly.  These  are  immediately  to  the  north 
of  the  pumping  station  marked  "Pleasanton  Pump  No.  1",  and  are 
connected  with  it  by  a  red  line  indicating  the  conduit  line.  The  No.  3 
pump  is  the  westerly  pump,  and  No.  2  pump  is  the  easterly  pump  of 
those  two  without  a  name. 

THIRD  HEARING.  JULY  14,  1915. 

Witness  J.  J.  SHARON. 
103-104  (Certain  corrections  noted  on  the  face  of  the  record) 

CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY   MR.   STEINHART. 

"Exhibit  12-k"  was  set  up  by  Mr.  Metcalf  from  data  furnished 
by  me,  which  is  the  data  that  is  shown  by  the  displacement  of  the 
pump  operating  at  maximum  speed  for  which  it  was  designed.  I 
did  not  allow  for  slippage,  although  there  is  a  small  loss.  The  loss 
through  slipping  does  not  increase,  as  the  period  of  time  during 
which  the  pump  has  been  used  increases,  for  the  reason  that  we  re- 
placed the  valves  in  the  pumps  at  intervals,  so  that  the  working  order 
is  maintained  at  as  high  a  state  of  efficiency  as  possible.  This  loss 

24 


Sharon 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

through  slippage  is  likely  to  amount  to  from  4  to  5%  the  first  year 
that  the  pump  is  in  use,  and  continue  at  probably  that  rate  during  all 
the  time  that  it  is  in  use. 

The  column  headed  "Combined  Capacity  Million  Gallons  Daily,       106 
21.5",  was  inserted  there  for  the  reason  that  in  item  2  there  are  five 
units  aggregating  twenty-two  million  gallons  daily;  that  meant  the 
combined  capacity  at  the  station.     Where  there  is  only  one  unit  it 
refers  to  that  one  unit. 

The  column  "Actual  Average  Pumpage  Million  Gallons  Daily 
1913,  2.42  Millions",  means  that  the  pumps  were  in  operation  but  for 
a  short  time  during  the  year,  and  the  total  pumpage  was  divided  by 
the  number  of  days  in  the  year,  thus  reducing  it  to  million  gallons 
daily  for  the  year  1913.  The  Belmont  and  Millbrae  pumps  were  also 
used  during  the  year  1913.  The  purpose  of  showing  that  pumpage  in 
the  other  was  because  they  are  used  only  at  intervals,  and  in  1913 
to  assist  in  getting  more  water  into  the  city.  The  Belmont  pumping 
station  has  a  capacity  of  twenty-two  million  gallons  daily,  and 
pumped  in  1913  only  13.1  million  gallons  daily.  That  figure  comes 
in  on  an  exhibit  later  on  in  this  book.  It  should  have  been  entered 
in  on  this  sheet  before  us,  as  should  also  Millbrae.  I  have  not  the 
record  for  the  pumpage  at  Millbrae. 

These  pumps  are  all  operated  below  full  capacity.  Slippage  has 
not  been  deducted  from  the  total  of  the  column,  ' '  Combined  Capacity 
Million  Gallons".  The  correction  for  slippage  should  also  be  made 
for  the  4.25  in  the  last  column,  in  other  words,  in  neither  column  has 
there  been  any  correction  for  slippage.  The  actual  average  pumpage 
Million  Gallons  Daily  column,  is  not  the  actual  amount  delivered, 
but  the  computed  amount,  without  deduction  for  slippage. 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  OLNEY. 

It  is  not  advisable  to  run  the  pumps  at  any  higher  speed  than 
accords  with  the  totals  shown  here,  although  they  do  occasionally, 
and  it  is  possible  to  run  them  at  a  higher  rate  of  speed  for  short 
intervals,  and  this  is  also  done. 

CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY   MR.   STEINHART.  108 

The  last  column,  "Actual  Average  Pumpage  Million  Gallons 
Daily",  was  prepared  from  the  logs  kept  at  the  various  pumping 
stations,  showing  the  number  of  revolutions  that  the  pumps  make, 
and  the  quantity  of  water  was  computed  by  multiplying  the  number 
of  revolutions  made  by  the  displacement  in  gallons  per  revolution. 
The  total  pumpage  during  the  year  1913  was  not  at  the  combined 
capacity  of  the  pumping  station ;  there  were  days  in  the  year  when 
they  worked  at  the  maximum  capacity,  and  an  average  such  as  is 
given  here  would  be  realized  if  the  pumps  worked  to  full  capacity 
a  certain  number  of  days,  twenty  or  thirty  days,  and  the  amount  ar- 
rived at  in  that  way  were  divided  by  365.  We  have  the  record  for 

25 


SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

every  day  showing  the  actual  working  of  these  pumps,  which  is  ac- 
cessible to  you,  and  the  most  of  which  records  Major  Dockweiler  has 

109  seen.     This  column  is  put  in  there  simply  to   show  the  average 
throughout  the  year. 

The  combined  capacity  million  gallons  a  day  in  the  second 
column  is  the  combined  capacity  of  the  different  stations  and  pumps 
under  the  conditions  under  which  they  actually  pump ;  these  pumps 
were  designed  for  certain  purposes,  and  the  capacity  is  in  accord- 
ance with  the  operation  under  those  conditions.  I  think  this  includes 
all  the  pumps. 

The  Millbrae  pump  is  so  arranged  that  the  water  has  first  to  go 
from  the  pumping  station  into  the  44-inch  pipe,  into  College  Hill  or 
Baden,  and  then  about  four  miles  north  of  the  location  of  the  Mill- 
brae  station  at  the  Town  of  Baden,  the  44-inch  pipe  has  two  30-inch 

110  branches.     There  is  only  one  San  Andres  pipe  line  and  that  is  the 
44-inch  pipe  at  the  Millbrae  pumping  station.    The  force  pipe  from 
Millbrae  pumps  is  30  inches  from  the  pumps  out  to  the  44-inch,  and 
that  is  a  short  distance  of  100  or  200  feet ;  but  the  capacity  of  the 
pump  is  not  limited  by  that  in  any  way,  as  the  30-inch  pipe  may  carry 
a  good  deal  more  than  the  pump  can  deliver  to  it.  We  take  the  speed 
at  which  these  pumps  were  designed  to  operate  and  then  multiply 
that  by  the  displacement  of  the  pump,  which  gives  a  result  obtained 
here.    The  combined  capacity  million  gallons  includes  the  units  that 
are  connected  up  and  actually  in  use. 

111  Admitted  as  "Plaintiff's  Exhibit  12-k". 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  OLNEY. 

The  next  page,  "Pipe  Distribution  System",  is  a  summary  of 
the  pipes  of  various  diameters  in  the  city  distribution  system,  the 
lengths  of  which  have  been  agreed  upon  by  Mr.  Ransom,  of  the  City 
Engineer's  Office,  and  Mr.  Elliott,  of  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Co. 
This  is  all  set  forth  in  the  inventory  in  detail,  and  is  simply  a  summa- 
tion of  the  results  of  the  inventory.  There  is  no  steel  pipe  in  the 
system. 

Offered  and  admitted  as  "Plaintiff's  Exhibit  12-1". 

The  next  sheet  is  a  summary  of  statistics  which  have  a  bearing 
on  the  population  of  San  Francisco  from  1850  to  1915.  These  figures 

112  were  obtained  from  the  Municipal  Reports  of  the  City  and  County 
of  San  Francisco,  and  include  in  the  first  column  the  United  States 
census  for  1860,  and  for  each  decade  thereafter  down  to  1910.    In 
column  2  is  an  estimate  for  a  portion  of  that  time,  from  1872  to  1903 
inclusive,  made  by  the  San  Francisco  Health  Board.     The  figures 
for  the  years  1904,  1908,  1910,  1913  and  1914  were  not  published  in 
the  Municipal  Reports.    The  reports  for  1913  and  1914  are  not  pub- 
lished to  my  knowledge.    In  the  case  of  the  previous  years  they  were 
not  shown  in  the  Municipal  Report. 

26 


SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

The  third  column,  "  Estimate  by  Spring  Valley  Water  Co.,  1913", 
is  an  estimate  of  the  population  for  each  year  from  1867  to  1915, 
based  primarily  on  the  United  States  Census  for  the  decades  1870, 
1890  and  so  on,  and  for  the  inter-censal  years  the  population  has  been 
interpolated  between  those  points  as  shown  by  the  Census  in  connec- 
tion with  the  study  of  the  other  statistics  that  are  shown  in  column 
4,  "Registered  Voters",  column  5,  "School  Children",  column  6, 
"Average  Daily  School  Attendance",  column  7,  "Births",  column  8, 
"Deaths".  I  do  not  know  that  the  births  and  deaths  had  very  much 
to  do  with  it,  but  they  were  put  in  simply  as  an  independent  sum- 
mary, to  show  some  vital  statistics. 

The  data  which  appears  in  the  column  headed  "From  Municipal 
Reports",  was  obtained  from  the  Municipal  Reports,  but  in  the  last 
five  columns  there  is  some  data  which  was  obtained  from  the  Spring 
Valley  Water  Co.'s  records  of  live  bills  which  are  live  accounts.  The 
next  column  shows  the  new  services  added  during  the  year.  The  third  113 
column  shows  the  dwellings  at  the  end  of  each  year,  but  this  record  is 
not  complete.  No  account  has  been  kept  from  1906  to  1910.  This  in- 
completeness is  due  to  the  fact  that  some  of  the  data  was  lost  in  the 
fire,  and  the  next  column,  which  shows  families  at  the  end  of  the  year, 
is  likewise  incomplete  from  the  early  beginning,  for  the  same  reasons. 
It  is  possible  to  get  the  data  from  1906  to  date,  but  it  had  not  been 
actually  summarized,  and  I  did  not  put  it  in.  There  is  enough  data 
to  show  the  general  trend  of  the  increase  of  families  during  the  later 
years.  The  last  column  shows  the  vacant  houses,  and  is  the  average 
during  the  year.  This  record  has  not  been  maintained  since  the  fire. 
These  last  columns,  under  the  heading  "From  Spring  Valley  Water 
Co.'s  Records"  were  so  derived,  and  all  of  these  columns,  with  the 
exception  of  the  third,  correctly  represent  the  result  of  the  records 
from  which  they  were  taken. 

Offered  in  evidence  as  "Plaintiff's  Exhibit  12-m". 

(Discussion  between  attorneys  as  to  admissability  of  statistical    113-114 
information  of  character  as  offered  by  Municipal  Reports). 

Objected  to  by  Mr.  Steinhart,  and  objection  overruled. 

Admitted  as  "Exhibit  12-m". 

CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY   MR.  STEINHART.  115 

I  do  not  know  the  method  of  estimating  the  second  column  "Esti- 
mates by  San  Francisco  Health  Board",  as  that  appeared  in  their 
report,  which  was  published  in  the  Municipal  Report,  and  I  took 
those  figures  from  that  report  without  knowing  who  made  them  or 
how  they  made  them. 

"  The  third  column  is  an  estimate  made  by  Spring  Valley  Water 
Co.  in  1913,  to  which  I  added  the  years  1914  and  1915  a  few  days 
ago.    This  estimate  I  made  from  the  United  States  Census  primarily,        116 
and  for  the  purpose  of  getting  the  population  for  the  inter-censal 

27 


SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

years,  I  was  aided  in  the  increase  from  1870  to  1880,  and  from  1880 
to  1890,  and  so  on,  by  the  data  as  shown  in  the  other  columns,  par- 
ticularly the  columns  headed,  "Registered  Voters",  "School  Chil- 
dren", and  "Average  Daily  School  Attendance",  which  I  took  for 
the  reason  that  in  1910  the  school  children  census  was  abolished,  and 
there  is  a  record  only  of  the  average  daily  school  attendance  from 
1911  to  1914  or  1915.  The  number  of  live  accounts  headed,  "Live 
Bills  End  of  Each  Year",  aided  me  in  the  determination  of  that  line, 
by  the  new  services  added  during  the  year,  and  also  by  the  dwellings 
and  families  at  the  end  of  the  year.  I  did  not  use  any  data  other 
than  the  data  that  appears  upon  this  record  to  get  my  conclusions 
in  column  3,  and  the  correctness  of  my  conclusions  can  be  estimated 
from  the  data  upon  this  record.  I  did  not  use  the  estimate  as  given 
by  Mr.  Schussler,  nor  anything  except  the  data  that  is  shown  on 
this  table. 

The  columns  "Registered  Voters",  and  "School  Children",  were 
taken  from  the  Municipal  Reports,  and  the  average  daily  school  at- 
117  tendance  was  also  taken  from  the  Municipal  Reports  up  to  the  year 
1911  or  1912,  and  since  that  time  I  have  obtained  the  information 
from  the  School  Board.  Births  and  deaths  were  taken  from  the 
Municipal  Reports,  except  the  last  two  years,  which  I  obtained  from 
the  Health  Board. 

The  "Live  Bills"  at  the  end  of  each  year  includes  all  the  bills 
to  business  places  and  residences.  New  services  also  include  business 
places  and  residences. 

The  record  in  the  column,  "Dwellings  at  the  end  of  the  year", 
is  taken  from  the  water  company's  books,  in  which  are  classified 
the  various  buildings  in  San  Francisco,  to  which  it  supplies  water; 
for  example,  business  buildings  and  dwellings  which  are  houses,  or 
flats,  or  apartments  in  which  families  live.  This  column  does  not 
include  business  places. 

The  column,  "Families  at  the  end  of  the  year",  was  taken  from 
the  records  of  the  company,  showing  the  dwellings,  and  also  the 
vacancies  occurring  in  those  dwellings,  and  has  a  bearing  on  the  pop- 
ulation, for  if  the  families  increase,  we  assume  that  the  population 
increases.  I  presume  this  is  an  estimate  in  part  taken  from  occupied 
•"•1°  and  unoccupied  dwellings.  The  company  keeps  a  record  in  which 
it  has  the  number  of  dwellings  to  which  it  supplies  water,  and  to 
which  it  submits  bills  each  month.  When  a  family  moves  out,  the 
company  is  notified,  and  makes  an  inspection  to  see  that  the  place  is 
not  occupied,  and  if  not,  it  is  entered  as  vacant.  If  it  is  not  vacant, 
it  is  taken  to  be  occupied.  This  gives  the  number  of  families  in  San 
Francisco  supplied  by  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Co.,  and  is  estimated 
by  the  occupancy  of  dwelling  houses.  It  is  taken  for  granted  that  a 
certain  number  of  dwelling  houses,  if  occupied,  contain  a  certain  num- 
ber of  families,  and  the  dwelling,  for  example,  is  sometimes  class- 

28 


SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

ified  as  a  flat ;  two  flats  as  one  dwelling,  and  there  may  be  two  fami- 
lies living  in  it  if  they  are  both  occupied.  In  ascertaining  the  num- 
ber of  families  to  the  dwelling,  if  the  records  of  the  company  show  it 
was  occupied,  it  was  simply  considered  one  family.  This  is  an  actual  119 
record,  except  that  it  may  be  an  estimate  at  the  end  of  the  year, 
for  the  reason  that  it  has  been  assumed,  unless  a  vacancy  has  been 
reported,  that  a  flat  is  occupied,  whereas,  at  the  end  of  the  year  it 
might  have  been  vacant,  and  might  not  have  been  reported  to  the 
company.  In  that  way,  the  figures  are  not  exactly  right.  If  the 
dwelling  is  a  flat,  the  figures  would  include  one  family.  If  there 
were  two  flats,  both  occupied,  there  would  be  two  families,  and  so  on. 
I  do  not  know  who  actually  compiled  these  figures  of  families  at  the 
end  of  the  year ;  it  was  done  in  the  Water  Sales  Department,  under 
the  direction  of  Mr.  Wallace,  for  a  number  of  years  from  1908  to 
1914,  and  under  the  direction  of  Mr.  Crawford  for  the  year  1915. 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  OLNEY. 

In  reaching  the  estimated  population,  as  contained  in  the  third 
column,  I  platted  the  curve  represented  by  the  figures  in  the  other 
columns  so  that  I  had  the  assistance  of  a  diagramatic  scheme.  That 
is  shown  two  or  three  sheets  further  on  in  this  book. 

Referring  to  the  next  sheet,  headed  "Table  showing  the  number 
of  services  and  live  bills  1858-1913,  at  end  of  each  year,  and  the 
number  of  new  services  added  for  each  year  since  1865  to  November 
1,  1913",  that  should  be  changed  to  December  31,  1914.  This  table  120 
was  computed  from  the  records  of  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Co.,  and 
the  first  column  contains  the  year,  the  next  column,  headed  "New 
Services",  means  the  new  services  which  the  company  puts  in  each 
year  for  supplying  water,  except  the  first  figure  of  7,144,  which  is  the 
total  number  of  services  from  1858  to  1865.  From  1866  to  1914,  the 
figures  in  the  second  column  represent  the  new  services  added 
annually  by  the  company. 

The  column  headed  ' '  Cumulative  Total ' ',  was  made  up  by  adding 
the  new  services  added  annually,  to  the  total  of  the  year  before,  these 
being  taken  from  the  preceding  column.  The  third  column  is  the  sum 
of  the  second  column  down  to  that  year. 

The  fourth  column,  "Total  live  bills  at  the  end  of  the  year",  is 
the  record  of  the  live  accounts  as  shown  in  the  previous  exhibit,  and 
is  the  number  of  accounts  that  are  active  at  the  end  of  the  year  shown. 

Offered  as  "Plaintiff's  Exhibit  12-n". 

Questioned  by  Master. 

The  difference  of  25,000  services  in  vacant  houses,  between  the 
cumulative  total  of  89,000  and  64,000  odd,  means  that  some  of  them       121 
are  inactive,  and  some  of  them  gone  out  of  use,  and  this  cumulative 
total  89,624  does  not  represent  the  total  active  services.    It  represents 
some  that  have  been  abandoned.    The  total  live  accounts,  64,000,  in- 

29 


Sharon 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

eludes  those  actually  operative  at  the  end  of  the  year ;  there  are  others 
temporarily  inactive.  The  active  services  are  not  shown  here,  but  the 
services  in  use  are  stated  in  the  inventory,  and  there  is  an  allowance 
made  for  such  of  these  services  as  are  shown  in  the  third  column  that 
are  abandoned  or  out  of  use. 

Admitted  as  "Exhibit  12-n". 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  OLNEY. 

The  company  has  a  record  of  the  active  services,  meaning  by  that, 
services  in  use,  though  possibly  not  at  the  time  having  water  flowing 
through  them.  This  would  include  services  to  vacant  houses.  There 
is  a  list  of  these  shown  on  page  342  of  the  printed  inventory.  The 
total  active  services  for  the  year  1913  being  66,224,  and  that  includes 
services  to  vacant  houses. 

122  Table  headed  "Basis  for  estimated  population  of  San  Francisco, 
California,  Spring  Valley  Water  Company,  June  22,  1915",  intro- 
duced as  "Plaintiff's  Exhibit  12-o". 

The  next  sheet  headed  "Population  of  Greater  San  Francisco  as 
estimated  by  Marx,  1911,  and  Freeman,  1912",  is  a  diagramatic  rep- 
resentation, and  was  prepared  by  Prof.  Marx,  of  Stanford  University, 
and  John  R.  Freeman,  of  Providence,  R.  I.,  an  hydraulic  engineer, 
who  was  engaged  in  an  investigation  of  the  water  situation  here  in 
1912. 

The  heavy,  solid  line,  as  shown  on  the  sheet  entitled  "Estimated 
Population  of  District  Served  by  Spring  Valley  Water  Company,  San 
Francisco,  California",  and  running  from  the  year  1867  up  to  the 
year  1913,  represents  the  actual  growth  as  estimated,  and  as  shown 
in  "Exhibit  12-o".  The  dotted  lines  which  branch  out  from  this  line 
at  the  year  1910,  headed  "At  Chicago  Rate",  "Cleveland  Rate",  "St. 
Louis  Rate",  "Boston  Rate",  "Pittsburg  and  Alleghany  Rate",  and 
"Baltimore  Rate",  indicate  the  rate  of  increase  and  the  growth  of 
population  of  those  various  cities  from  the  time  when  their  population 

123  was  the  same  as  San  Francisco's  was  in  1910.    I  took  the  rate  of  in- 
crease in  Chicago  beginning  with  the  time  at  which  it  had  a  popula- 
tion slightly  over  400,000,  and  then  platted  the  rate  of  increase  of 
Chicago  from  that  time  on,  and  that  is  the  same  with  the  other  cities. 
In  each  case  I  have  taken  as  a  starting  point  for  the  dotted  line  the 
time  at  which  the  city  under  consideration  had  a  population  of  close 
to  400,000  people. 

The  dotted  line  marked  "Manson,  1910,  Freeman  Report",  rep- 
resents data  that  was  taken  from  a  report  made  by  Mr.  Marsden  Man- 
son,  City  Engineer,  in  which  he  estimated  probable  future  population 
of  the  City  of  San  Francisco. 

The  line  marked  "Estimate  Schussler,  1913,  Marx  1906,  Herr- 
mann, Spring  Valley  Water  Co.,  1913,  Grunsky  1901",  indicates  esti- 
mates made  by  these  gentlemen  of  the  probable  increase  in  population. 

30 


Sharon 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

Mr.  Schussler  and  Mr.  Herrmann  were  engineers  for  the  Spring  Val- 
ley Water  Co.,  and  Mr.  Grunsky  was  City  Engineer,  I  believe,  at       124 
the  time  he  made  those  estimates.    The  dates  which  appear  opposite  the 
names  of  these  gentlemen  are  the  dates  at  which  they  made  their 
estimates. 

Admitted  as  "Plaintiff's  Exhibit  12-p". 

The  data  on  the  sheet  headed  "Vital  Statistics",  all  came  from 
the  Municipal  Report,  except  the  estimate  of  population,  and  the  com- 
putations that  were  made  per  thousand  population,  both  according  to 
the  Spring  Valley  Water  Co.  records.  The  computation  under  the 
heading  "Deaths  from  Typhoid  Fever,  according  to  Spring  Valley 
Water  Company's  Estimate  of  Population",  came  from  the  Spring 
Valley  Water  Co.'s  estimates  of  population.  The  other  records  are 
from  the  Municipal  Reports,  and  that  table  should  read  "Vital  Sta-  125 
tistics,  San  Francisco,  1866  to  1915",  instead  of  1913. 

Offered  and  admitted  as  "Plaintiff's  Exhibit  12-q". 

The  next  tabulation  contained  on  the  following  sheet,  is  continued 
on  sheet  2,  so  that  this  tabulation  is  made  up  of  two  sheets,  and  is  a 
summary  of  water  consumption  statistics  of  the  Spring  Valley  Water 
Co.,  made  up  from  the  records  of  the  company,  with  the  exception  of 
the  population,  which  is  an  estimate. 

Offered  in  evidence  as  "Plaintiff's  Exhibit  12-r". 

CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.   STEINHART. 

The  second  column,  "Acre  Feet",  is  the  equivalent  of  the  million 
gallons  per  day  in  acre  feet,  but  I  do  not  remember  now  what  figure 
we  used  for  the  purpose  of  transmuting  it  from  million  gallons  to  acre        126 
feet,  but  I  think  we  used  the  figure  3.06. 

Questioned  by  Master. 

This  is  the  consumption  as  shown  by  the  water  measured  through 
the  town  through  weirs  and  pumps,  and  includes  leakage. 

Admitted  as  "Exhibit  12-r". 

The  next  sheet  is  a  statement  showing  the  monthly  water  con- 
sumption of  the  City  and  County  of  San  Francisco  in  million  gallons 
per  month  and  per  day  from  Spring  Valley  Water  Co.  plant.  The 
data  extends  from  1909  to  and  inclusive  of  1914.  These  records  were 
checked  over  by  Major  Dockweiler  for  the  City  and  found  correct, 
except  as  to  the  estimated  population,  and  the  average  gallons  per 
capita  per  day,  as  indicated  just  before  his  signature  on  the  end.  We 
both  agreed  to  the  statement  which  is  on  that  sheet,  and  entitled 
"Total  Water  Consumption  in  San  Francisco  is  measured  by  weirs  127 
and  pumpage  records.  No  deductions  were  made  for  slippage  in  these 
pump  records". 

Offered  and  admitted  as  "Exhibit  12-s". 

The  next  table  shows  the  water  consumption  in  San  Francisco  by 
districts,  which  corresponds  with  those  described  from  "Exhibit  4". 

1  31 


Sharon 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

The  "High  Service"  district  is  the  one  which  I  described  as  the 
Clarendon  Heights  District,  supplied  by  the  Clarendon  Heights  Res- 
ervoir, at  an  elevation  of  600  feet.  The  district  headed  "Upper  Ser- 
vice ' ',  elevation  365  feet,  is  the  district  which  I  described  on  ' '  Exhibit 
4"  as  embracing  the  portion  of  San  Francisco  supplied  by  what  is 
called  the  Lake  Honda  Reservoir.  The  middle  service  is  the  portion 
of  the  city  supplied  by  College  Hill  Reservoir,  and  the  elevation  is 
shown  as  255  feet.  The  low  service  previously  described  on  "Exhibit 
4"  as  the  University  Mound  District,  is  supplied  by  University  Mound 
Reservoir  at  an  elevation  of  165  feet. 

This  tabulation  was  agreed  to  by  Major  Dockweiler  and  myself. 

Offered  and  admitted  as  "Plaintiff's  Exhibit  12-t". 

128  The  next  sheet  is  a  summary  showing  the  water  draft  from  differ- 
ent sources,  of  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Co.,  in  million  gallons  per 
year  from  the  year  1907  to  1914,  and  in  the  last  column  showing  the 
average  for  the  years  1907  and  1914.    The  second  portion  of  the  table 
shows  the  million  gallons  per  day,  which  is  the  same  as  the  above  fig- 
ures except  that  the  above  figures  are  divided  by  365  days,  or  in  the 
case  of  a  leap  year  by  366  days.    Per-cent  of  total  draft  is  a  mathe- 
matical computation  based  upon  the  preceding  figures;   the  water 
draft  from  the  Alameda  system  during  the  irrigation  season,  in  million 
gallons  daily,  from  the  year  1906  to  1914,  showing  the  mean,  and  also, 
as  in  the  last  two  columns,  the  maximum  months  in  the  irrigation 
season  showing  the  largest  quantity  of  water  received  during  those 
years.     The  irrigation  season,  made  up  from  the  months  extending 
from  May  to  October  inclusive,  is  taken  from  the  records  of  the  Spring 
Valley  Water  Co. 

Offered  in  evidence  as  "Plaintiff's  Exhibit  12-u". 

CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY   MR.   STEINHART. 

The  records  showing  the  water  draft  from  the  Alameda  system 
are  from  the  Brightside  weirs.  I  believe  that  most  all  of  the  record 
as  to  the  Alameda  system  are  taken  from  the  Brightside  weirs,  and 

129  that  where  we  have  not  the  record  at  Brightside  weirs,  we  used  the 
pump  displacement  at  the  Belmont  pump,   indicating  the  quantity 
drawn  from  the  Alameda  system.    This  would  be  subject  to  deduction 
as  to  slippage,  but  what  the  normal  allowance  for  slipping  of  pumps, 
such  as  the  Belmont  pumps  is,  I  do  not  know  positively ;  possibly  4  or 
5%  should  be  deducted  for  slippage.     Measurements  at  Brightside 
weirs  would  include  water  distributed  between  Brightside  weirs  and 
distributing  centers  of  San  Francisco  to  suburban  consumers,  and 
would  also  include  waters  wasted  at  the  Niles  screen  house.    I  do  not 
know  that  the  waste  water  at  the  Niles  screen  house  is  very  consid- 
erable during  certain  seasons  of  the  year,  but  think  the  waste  occurs 
there  when  they  are  making  changes  in  the  quantity  of  water  that  is 
required  at  the  Belmont  pump.     I  do  not  know  of  any  record  being 

32 


Sharon 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

kept  as  to  the  waste  at  Niles.    Waste  is  water,  wasted  from  the  top  of       130 
the  screen  tank  in  flowing  down  into  the  creek.     I  have  seen  waste 
there  myself  but  it  was  due  to  a  change  in  the  operations  of  the  quan- 
tity of  water  that  was  actually  wanted  at  Belmont;  the  regulation 
takes  place  at  the  Sunol  dam. 

Other  than  deductions  for  the  Belmont  pump  slippage,  waste  at 
Brightside  and  distribution  to  suburban  consumers,  there  are  no  other 
to  my  knowledge.  The  Crystal  Springs  measurements  were  taken  at 
University  Mound  at  the  weir.  There  should  be  no  deductions  made 
from  that.  The  measurements  at  University  Mound  do  not  include 
all  the  water  from  the  Crystal  Springs  Reservoir.  There  is  water 
taken  from  there  and  supplied,  for  example,  to  San  Mateo,  about  three 
hundred  thousand  gallons  a  day,  and  other  places  along  the  line. 
Water  for  San  Mateo  is  supplied  at  the  San  Mateo  screen  house.  The 
water  is  really  measured  at  University  Mound  Reservoir.  San  Andres  131 
water  is  measured  at  the  outlet  of  the  San  Andres  or  Bald  Hill  tun- 
nel, just  before  the  water  enters  the  44-inch  pipe  line  to  be  delivered 
into  San  Francisco.  It  is  a  weir  measurement.  It  is  subject  to  a 
slight  deduction  made  for  uses  along  the  line  which  aggregates  pos- 
sibly about  50,000  gallons  a  day.  Lake  Merced  is  not  subject  to  any 
deduction.  That  water  is  all  supplied  within  the  city.  It  is  measured 
at  the  Lake  Merced  pumping  station.  The  same  methods  of  measure- 
ment were  resorted  to  during  all  the  period  of  time  from  1907  to 
1914,  except  at  San  Andres,  we  increased  the  weirs  from  two  weirs  to 
four;  the  method  is  the  same,  but  there  are  a  different  number  of  132 
weirs.  The  measurements  are  recorded  every  day.  The  data  given 
here  are  the  sum  totals  of  those  daily  measurements.  I  did  not  make 
them  all  myself.  They  were  made  by  different  people  in  different 
years.  I  might  say  that  they  have  all  been  made  under  my  direction 
while  I  was  in  the  Operating  Department  and  the  Engineering  De- 
partment. I  know  that  the  computations  are  correct.  Major  Dock- 
weiler  and  I  checked  the  data  that  are  shown  on  the  first  table  there ; 
the  water  draft  in  million  gallons  per  year ;  we  went  over  the  records. 
There  was  no  agreement  between  Major  Dockweiler  and  myself  as  to 
the  one  set  forth  on  that  table,  but  on  the  succeeding  table  there  was 
— the  same  figures  appear.  The  million  gallons  per  day  is  a  matter 
of  computation  from  the  first  figures  there.  The  per-cent  of  total 
draft  is  a  computation.  The  draft  from  the  Alameda  system  is  given  133 
only  during  the  irrigation  period,  just  to  show  the  water  that  is  drawn 
during  those  months.  They  are  not  the  heavy  rain  months.  They  are 
the  summer  months.  The  measurements  for  that  water  draft  for  the 
Alameda  system  during  the  irrigation  season  were  taken  from  the  same 
place  as  indicated  above,  either  at  Brightside  or  Belmont  pumps,  when 
the  Brightside  weirs  were  not  in  operation. 

"Plaintiff's  Exhibit  12-u"  admitted. 


Sharon 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 
DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  OLNEY. 

The  next  tabulation  is  made  up  of  three  sheets,  which  follow  in 
consecutive  order.  They  represent  water  drawn  monthly  from  dif- 
ferent sources  of  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Co.  in  the  years  1907  to 
1914  inclusive,  in  million  gallons.  Those  figures  are  monthly  details 
of  the  figures  set  up  in  the  yearly  totals,  as  shown  in  ' '  Exhibit  12-u ' ', 
which  we  have  just  discussed.  This  table  has  been  agreed  upon  be- 
tween Mr.  Dockweiler  and  myself. 

Offered  as  "Plaintiff's  Exhibit  12-v",  and  admitted. 

134  The  next  tabulation  is  likewise  made  up  of  three  sheets.     These 
three  sheets  are  the  same  as  the  exhibit  immediately  preceding,  with 
the  exception  that  this  is  upon  the  basis  of  million  gallons  per  day  in- 
stead of  million  gallons  per  month. 

Offered  as  "Plaintiff's  Exhibit  12-w",  and  admitted. 

The  next  tabulation  is  headed  "Water  Stored  in  the  Different 
Sources  at  the  end  of  each  month,  Spring  Valley  Water  Co.,  in  mil- 
lion gallons",  and  it  purports  to  set  out  .the  amount  stored  in  these 
various  reservoirs.  The  data  was  obtained  in  the  Spring  Valley  Water 
Co.  's  records  of  the  gauge  heights  of  the  various  reservoirs,  and  of  the 
table  of  contents  of  storage  capacity  tables.  The  tabulation  is  correct. 
It  was  made  by  me,  or  under  my  supervision.  It  consists  of  three 
pages. 

Offered  as  "Plaintiff's  Exhibit  12-x". 

CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY   MR.   STEINHART. 

These  measurements  were  made  in  the  same  way  that  I  testified 
yesterday  concerning  the  reservoir  measurements  in  "12-h",  and  are 
subject  to  any  objection  that  that  method  has.  These  objections  are 
very  small.  We  did  not  carry  these  out  only  to  the  nearest  million 
gallons. 
134%  Admitted  as  "Plaintiff's  Exhibit  12-x". 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  OLNEY. 

The  next  sheet,  headed  ' '  Boilers ' '  purports  to  set  out  certain  data 
in  regard  to  boilers,  and  is  correct. 

Offered  as  "Plaintiff's  Exhibit  12-y". 

135  CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY   MR.  STEINHART. 

Commencing  with  the  columns  "Heating  Surfaces  Square  Feet", 
and  "Rated  Horse  Power  Each";  that  is  data  that  appears  on  the 
boiler  itself,  and  is  also  taken  from  the  size  of  the  boiler.  The  rated 
horse  power  is  based  on  the  size  of  the  boiler.  That  is  the  rating  of  the 
manufacturer.  The  steam  pressure  is  the  maximum  allowed  by  the 
insurance  company  which  carried  the  boiler  insurance.  The  average 
steam  pressure  there  is  the  average  pressure  that  is  carried  in  the 

34 


Sharon 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

actual  operation  of  the  boilers  in  pounds  and  is  the  normal  average 
during  the  operation  of  the  boiler,  which  is  taken  from  the  records 
of  the  plant  itself  every  day.  For  a  certain  period  of  time  those  rec- 
ords are  taken  and  averaged  up.  There  is  a  slight  fluctuation,  for  ex- 
ample, from  109  to  111,  and  we  caU  that  110.  136 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  OLNEY. 

The  average  is  the  pressure  that  is  normally  carried  in  the  op- 
eration of  the  plant,  and  it  fluctuates  a  little.  In  the  first  case  from 
109  to  possibly  111 ;  110  being  the  average.  "We  carry  boiler  insurance 
which  is  written  by  the  Maryland  Casualty  Co.  The  inspection  is 
made  by  the  American  Casualty  Co.  The  Underwriters,  1910,  report 
on  conditions  was  made  under  the  direction  of  Mr.  Clarence  Gold- 
smith, who  is  a  hydraulic  engineer  for  the  Board  of  Fire  Underwriters, 
and  is  the  printed  published  report  of  the  Fire  Underwriters.  (Last 
column  objected  to  by  Mr.  Steinhart).  Objection  sustained. 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  OLNEY.  137 

The  next  sheet  headed  "Pumping  Stations — Equipment  Pumps", 
purports  to  set  forth  a  lot  of  data  concerning  the  various  pumps  of 
the  company  and  is  correct  as  set  forth. 

Offered  in  evidence  as  "Plaintiff's  Exhibit  12-z". 

CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.   STEINHART. 

The  data  in  the  column  "Slip  Per-Centage ",  was  obtained 
through  pitometer  tests  of  the  flow  of  water  through  the  force  pipe 
connected  with  the  pumps,  and  from  that  was  deduced  the  slippage, 
that  being  the  actual  delivery  of  water  as  compared  with  the  delivery 
based  upon  the  plunger  displacement.  Where  there  are  no  data  as  138 
to  slippage,  we  did  not  make  experiments  on  the  tests  to  get  that. 
There  is  slippage  on  a  centrifugal  pump.  As  I  recall  it  now,  those 
are  the  only  slip  tests  that  were  made,  I  am  quite  positive  of  that. 
The  slip  tests  were  made  at  different  times  in  the  operation  of  the 
plant,  and  those  are  the  records  that  were  obtained.  The  one  at 
Millbrae  station  shown  first  there,  was  made,  I  think,  in  1912  or  1913. 
I  am  not  positive  about  the  exact  dates  of  these.  The  one  at  Belmont 
was  made  at  about  the  same  time. 

Ocean  View  was  made,  I  think,  about  1911.  Black  Point  was 
made  first  in  1909,  and  also  a  number  of  times  since.  Clarendon 
Heights,  I  think,  was  made  about  1911  or  1912.  The  one  at  Central 
pumps  was  made  in  1914.  The  next  column  means  the  labor  shifts; 
three  eight  hour  shifts.  They  are  from  our  own  records.  139 

The  water  Horse  Power  corresponds  with  the  horse  power  of 
the  pumps,  and  is  stated  as  water  horse  power. 

"Plaintiff's  Exhibit  12-z"  admitted. 

35 


Sharon 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 
DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  OLNEY. 

As  regards  the  per-centages  of  slippage,  the  slippage  has  refer- 
ence to  that  particular  pump  and  only  to  the  extent  the  measure- 
ment of  water  coming  into  the  city  are  determined  by  pump  meas- 
urements, would  these  percentages  of  slippages  have  any  bearing  on 
the  amount  of  water  delivered  into  the  city.  A  correction  would  have 
to  be  made  for  slippage.  It  may  not  be  exactly  this  amount,  because 
it  would  fluctuate  slightly.  This  does  not  appear  on  weir  measure- 
ments, as  there  is  no  deduction  to  be  made.  The  percentage  of  slip- 
page bears  only  on  the  net  capacity  of  the  particular  pump. 

CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.   STEINHART. 

I  do  not  mean  to  say  that  where  no  data  is  given  as  to  the  other 
pumps  that  there  is  no  slippage  on  those  pumps.  There  is  slippage  on 
all  pumps,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  even  when  they  are  new.  It  is  me- 
chanical imperfection. 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  OLNEY. 

The  next  sheet  is  headed  "Statement  of  Assessed  Value  of  Prop- 
erty, Rate  of  Taxation,  and  Amount  of  Taxes  Levied  from  1850  to 
1912  and  1913  inclusive,  San  Francisco,  California,  copied  from  the 
report  of  Auditor  of  San  Francisco,  contained  in  Municipal  Reports 
1911  and  1912,  pages  156-157".  It  is  a  correct  abstract  of  what  ap- 

140  pears  in  the  Municipal  Reports  as  regards  to  those  matters,  except 
that  for  the  years  1913  and  1914,  and  1914  and  1915,  which  are  added 
at  the  bottom  of  the  second  sheet,  those  figures  were  obtained  from 
the  Assessor  of  the  City  and  County  of  San  Francisco,  and  did  not 
appear  in  the  Municipal  Reports  as  shown.    This  particular  tabula- 
tion is  made  up  of  two  pages,  and  it  is  the  assessed  value  of  all 
property  in  the  City  and  County  of  San  Francisco. 

A  discussion  by  Master  and  Mr.  Olney,  regarding  the  term  "oper- 
ative". 

141  "Plaintiff's  Exhibit  12-aa"  admitted. 
(Objected  to.     Objection  overruled.) 

142  Referring  to  "Exhibit  12-v",  relative  to  pumps,  and  also  to  the 
exhibit  concerning  water  consumption,  the  slipping  of  the  pump 
would  have  very  little  effect  on  the  total  water  brought  into  the 
city,  for  the  reason  that  the  only  pumping  station  where  the  pump 
displacement  is  entered  as  a  factor  in  the  total  supply  of  the  town,  is 
the  Lake  Merced  pumps.     The  daily  pumpage  through  the  Lake 
Merced  is  about  three  and  one-half  million  gallons,  or  less  than  one- 
tenth  of  forty  million  gallons,  the  total  daily  supply.    A  slippage  of 
five  per-cent  in  Lake  Merced  pumps  would  amount  to  about  a  half 
per-cent  of  the  total  supply. 


Sharon 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 
CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  STEINHART. 

I  did  not  state  that  the  measurements  of  the  Crystal  Springs 
source  were  made  through  the  pumpage  measurements  at  University 
Mound,  but  that  the  water  entering  University  Mound  was  measured 
over  the  University  Mound  weirs. 

The  San  Andres  was  measured  over  a  weir  for  water  coming 
from  San  Andres  Reservoir ;  that  is  to  say,  the  water  delivered  into 
San  Andres,  and  measured  out  of  San  Andres  Reservoir.  The  water  143 
from  Pilarcitos  is  brought  into  San  Andres,  and  is  measured  over 
the  same  weirs  as  is  the  water  from  San  Andres.  We  do  not  separate 
the  supply,  it  is  mixed.  The  water  from  Pilarcitos  is  delivered  to 
the  San  Andres  Reservoir  and  is  mixed  with  the  water  in  that  reser- 
voir, and  we  take  that  water  then  out  of  the  San  Andres  reservoir. 
The  Alameda  water  is  measured  at  the  Belmont  pumps,  so  far  as 
Belmont  was  concerned,  but  the  water  as  delivered  into  San  Fran- 
cisco was  delivered  into  University  Mound  Reservoir  and  was  meas- 
ured at  the  University  Mound  weir.  This  water  enters  the  Crystal 
Springs  pipe  line  at  Millbrae  pumps,  and  from  Millbrae  pumps  into 
the  University  Mound;  it  is  an  admixture  of  both  waters,  and  the 
waters  thus  combined  are  measured  before  they  enter  the  University 
Mound  Reservoir  over  the  University  Mound  weir,  which  gives  the  144 
combined  output  from  the  Alameda  and  Crystal  Springs  source. 

The  separate  Alameda  system  source  is  measured  over  the 
Brightside  weirs,  where  we  have  not  the  measurement  at  the  Belmont 
pumps,  and  so  far  as  the  computation  is  concerned,  if  there  is 
slippage  in  the  pumps,  we  deduct  the  total  amount  as  registered  by 
the  pumps  from  the  total  supply  from  the  Crystal  Springs  pipe  line, 
as  measured  over  the  University  Mound  weirs.  Thus,  any  deficiency 
from  Alameda  would  actually  increase  the  supply  from  Crystal 
Springs.  Applying  to  the  Alameda  system,  alone,  there  is  an  inac- 
curacy in-so-far  as  that  is  founded  upon  the  pumpage  at  Belmont, 
as  there  should  be  a  deduction  made  for  slippage  when  the  pump 
records  are  used. 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  OLNEY. 

The  Belmont  pumps  are  relied  on  for  measurement,  in  order 
to  get  the  amount  of  water  coming  from  the  Alameda  system,  for  a 
very  short  period  of  time.  It  occurs  occasionally  during  repairs  to 
the  Brightside  weirs.  This  is  also  possibly  true  when  in  the  regula- 
tion of  the  supply  from  Sunol  there  is  a  waste  over  the  screen  tank 
at  Niles,  and  instead  of  measuring  the  water  there,  some  of  which 
is  wasted,  the  record  is  taken  at  the  Belmont  pumping  station  as 
being  more  nearly  the  amount  supplied  than  would  be  recorded  at 
the  Brightside  weirs.  Generally,  however,  the  measurement  is  taken  145 
over  the  Brightside  weirs. 

37 


Sharon 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 
CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY   MR.   STEINHART. 

We  have  complete  data  of  the  Belmont  pumps,  at  Belmont,  and 
also  here  in  the  city. 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  OLNEY. 

The  tabulation,  "Bond  and  Stock  Holders  Actual  Cash  Invest- 
ment in  Spring  Valley  Water  Company,  Excluding  Allowance  for 
Deficiencies  in  Return",  was  prepared  by  Mr.  Metcalf  and  I,  and 
the  first  column  simply  gives  the  year,  the  second,  third  and  fourth 
columns  come  under  the  heading  "Amount  paid  in  by  Bond  Hold- 
ers". The  fifth,  sixth  and  seventh  columns  come  under  general 
heading  "Amount  paid  by  Stock  Holders".  The  figures  in  regard 
to  amount  paid  by  bond  holders  represent  the  actual  money  derived 
from  the  sale  of  bonds;  column  3  is  headed  "Actual",  and  column  6 
headed  "Amount  paid  by  Stock  Holders",  represents  the  actual 
amount  paid  by  stock  holders.  Column  8  is  the  sum  of  the  figures 

146  appearing  in  column  3  and  column  6,  and  column  9  represents  the 
total  amount  of  cash  paid  in  by  bond  holders  and  stock  holders  up 
to  the  particular  year  which  is  indicated.     Columns  10  and  11  are 
headed  "Interest  for  six  months  at  assumed  fair  rate  upon  combined 
payments";  column  10  being  the  interest  for  six  months  on  the 
combined  amounts  paid  in  by  stock  and  bond  holders,  as  shown  in 
column  8,  while  column  11  is  the  cumulative  total  of  column  10.    The 
interest  was  taken  for  six  months  on  the  theory  that  the  payments 
were  made  more  or  less  regularly,  and  that  the  total  amount  was 
actually  paid  in  and  in  use  for  an  average  of  about  six  months.    The 
interest  rate  is  shown  in  column  18,  headed  "Assumed  fair  cost  of 
money  without  profit,  Metealf,  rate  per-cent".     Column  12  is  the 
sum  of  the  annual  amount  paid  in,  as  shown  in  column  8,  plus  the 
interest  on  that  amount,  as  shown  in  column  10,  being  interest  for  six 
months.    The  sum  of  those  two  items  represents  the  sum  shown  in 
column  12.     Column  14,  headed  "Actual  Return'1,  represents  the 
coupon  interest  paid  on  the  bonds  by  the  Spring  Valley  Water 
Works,  and  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Co. 

147  Column  15  represents  dividends  paid  annually  by  the  Spring 
Valley  Water  Co.  and  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Works. 

Column  16  is  the  total  of  columns  14  and  15,  and  column  17  is 
the  rate  per-cent  of  column  13  divided  into  column  16,  or,  in  other 
words,  it  is  the  rate  per-cent  which  column  16  bears  to  column  13. 

The  amounts  actually  paid  in  by  the  bond  holders  and  stock 
holders  were  obtained  from  the  minutes  of  the  San  Francisco  City 
Water  Works,  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Works,  and  from  an  analysis, 
made  by  Mr.  George  Reynolds,  an  accountant  who  offered  testimony 
in  the  1903  and  1904  rate  cases,  of  his  analysis  made  of  these  matters 
from  the  Spring  Valley  and  San  Francisco  Water  Works  books.  The 
original  books  of  account  of  the  Spring  Valley  are  not  in  existence, 


Sharon 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

having  been  lost  in  the  fire  of  1906.    The  figures  in  these  tables  are 
taken  off  correctly  from  the  sources  of  information  which  I  had,  and 
the  calculations  which  are  deduced  from  these  figures  are  also  correct. 
Offered  in  evidence  as  "Plaintiff's  Exhibit  12-bb". 

CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.   STEINHART.  148 

The  date  1858  in  the  first  column  was  taken  because  the  first 
company  organized  for  supplying  water  to  San  Francisco  was  the 
San  Francisco  Water  Works  Company,  organized  in  1858,  and  after- 
ward consolidated  with  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Works  in  1865. 
The  date  from  1858  to  1865  covers  the  San  Francisco  Water  Works 
and  also  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Works  from  1860  to  1865.  The 
actual  amount  as  shown  in  column  6  from  1860  down  is  the  actual 
amount  contributed  by  the  stock  holders  of  the  two  companies,  and 
added  together  here.  The  deduction  at  the  end  of  the  table  takes 
care  of  refunded  bonds  as  shown  in  column  3,  for  the  years  1877  and 
1880;  the  sum  of  these  two  refundings  aggregate  $895,137.00,  and 
are  indicated  by  minus  signs  in  the  column. 

CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.   STEINHART. 

The  first  item  in  column  2,  headed  "Face  of  Bond  $320,000",  I 
got  out  of  the  minutes  of  the  company,  or  out  of  the  analysis  made 
by  Mr.  Reynolds.  I  got  that  entry  from  the  minutes  shown  under  1^9 
date  of  April  12,  1867,  April  26,  1867,  and  June  15,  1867.  The  min- 
utes were  not  the  original  copies  of  the  minutes,  but  I  think  possibly 
were  the  copies  obtained  from  Mr.  Dockweiler;  I  got  the  copy  that 
I  had  from  Mr.  Behan,  the  Secretary  of  the  Spring  Valley  Water 
Co.  The  second  item,  $180,000,  I  got  from  the  minutes,  and  also 
from  Mr.  Reynolds'  analysis;  Mr.  Reynolds'  analysis  also  covered 
the  first  item  that  I  gave,  $320,000,  being  $500,000  for  the  total  bond 
issue  of  1867  and  1868,  which  I  segregated  into  two  items.  I  don't 
know  where  the  reference  is  to  the  minutes  from  which  I  got  the 
$180,000,  but  I  have  the  minutes  here  in  reference  to  that  total  bond 
issue  of  $500,000,  under  the  dates  I  gave  you,  namely,  April  12,  1867, 
April  26,  1867,  June  15,  1867,  and  March  21,  1868. 

I  cannot  recall  the  exact  phraseology  of  the  minutes,  but  it       150 
had  reference  to  the  sale  of  those  bonds;  that  is  to  the  issuance  of 
them,  the  sale  being  authorized  by  the  Directors  of  the  company. 

Questioned  by  £he  Master. 

Mr.  Reynolds  was  the  accountant  who  made  an  examination  of 
the  Spring  Valley  Water  Co.'s  books,  and  the  San  Francisco  Water 
Works  Co.'s  books  in  the  1903  and  1904  case.  . 

CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.   STEINHART. 

I  do  not  know  whether  Mr.  Reynolds  is  alive  or  not,  as  I  have 
not  seen  him  for  a  number  of  years. 

39 


SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

I  have  a  record  of  the  next  item,  "1870,  $500,000",  from  the 
minutes  of  the  company  as  of  date  March  26,  1870. 

(It  was  here  suggested  that  Mr.  Dockweiler  and  Mr.  Sharon  get 
together  and  see  if  the  document  is  in  such  shape  so  that  it  can  be 
checked  up  in  so  far  as  this  column  is  concerned,  and  also  columns 
3,  5  and  6.  The  Master  decided  that  that  could  be  done  after  ad- 
journment). 

151  Referring  to  column  3,  item  "1867,  $320,000";  this  is  also  in 
the  minutes,  and  it  was  stated  that  the  bonds  were  sold  at  par,  so  I 
put  down  the  par  value  of  the  bonds.     I  checked  it  up  from  the 
records  shown  by  Mr.  Reynolds,  and  also  from  an  analysis  made  by 
Mr.  Wenzelberger,  of  the  actual  amounts  paid  for  coupon  interest, 
and  those  accorded  very  closely  with  the  records  I  had.  They  did 
not  do  so  exactly,  for  the  reason  that  I  did  not  know  for  how  long 
a  period  the  bonds  had  been  issued  during  the  year  when  the  coupon 
interest  was  paid.    I  had,  in  a  way,  a  check  on  the  actual  sale  of  the 
bonds  from  the  coupon  interest  that  was  paid.    The  analysis  that  was 
made  by  Mr.  Reynolds,  and  also  by  Mr.  Wenzelberger,  who  went  over 
the  Spring  Valley  books  for  the  City  and  County  of  San  Fran- 
cisco in  the  1903  and  1904  cases,  showed  that  the  coupon  interest 
amounting  to  $24,515,  was  paid  in  the  year  1867.    That  item  appeared 
in  the  profit  and  loss  account,  or  income  account,  I  have  forgotten 
just  what  the  name  was,  and  showed  the  actual  expenditures  for 
interest,  dividends,  operating  expenses,  and  all  other  financial  mat- 
ters, as  well  as  the  total  receipts  from  the  sale  of  water  and  other 

152  receipts  of  the  company.    The  coupon  interest  was  stated  as  coupon 
interest,  and  was  a  separate  item.     The  rate  of  the  coupon  interest 
on  the  amount  issued  in  1867  was  ten-per-cent.    The  bonds,  $320,000, 
issued  in  1867,  were  ten  year  bonds  bearing  interest  at  the  rate 
of  ten  per-cent.    The  next  item,  $180,000,  were  the  same  bonds,  and 
of  the  same  series.    They  were  called  in  the  minutes,  and  in  the  state- 
ments appearing  in  the  analysis  made  by  Mr.  Reynolds,  and  also  in 
the  income  and  profit  and  loss  account  made  by  Mr.  Wenzelberger 
for  the  City,  the  second  series  bonds  of  the  Spring  Valley  Water 
Works.    The  first  series  were  issued  in  1863,  and  were  five-year  bonds 
bearing  interest  at  the  rate  of  twelve  per-cent  per  annum,  interest 
payable   quarterly.     They  were   issued,   but   they  were   issued   in 
payment  for  stock,  and  as  I  had  taken  account  of  the  amount  in  the 
stock,  I  did  not  take  an  additional  account  of  it  as  bonds.    We  will 
get  that  in  the  stock  column.    The  next  item,  $505,137,  I  got  from 
the  minutes,  March  26,  1870,  and  also  from  the  testimony  given  by 
Mr.  Reynolds,  at  pages  4634  and  4636  of  his  testimony.    The  minutes 
show  that  the  bonds  were  authorized  to  be  issued,  and  dated  April 
1,  1870,  for  a  ten-year  period,  and  bearing  interest  at  the  rate  of  nine 

153  per-cent,   payable   semi-annually,   interest   payable   April    1st,    and 
October  1st.    The  minutes  show  that  these  bonds  were  sold,  and  the 

40 


Sharon 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

testimony  of  Mr.  Reynolds  shows  that  the  cash  was  received  for 
them.  The  bonds  were  sold  at  a  premium,  which  on  the  $500,000 
amounted  to  $5,137.  The  face  value  in  the  column  is  shown  as 
$500,000  and  the  actual  amount  received  is  shown  as  $505,137.  They 
were  ten-year  bonds  running  from  1870. 

The  next  item  is  an  issue  of  bonds,  face  value  one  million  dollars, 
issued  in  1875,  the  actual  amount  received  for  those  being  one  mil- 
lion dollars.  The  entry  as  to  the  issuance  of  these  bonds  I  got  from 
the  minutes  of  August  2,  1875,  and  also  from  the  testimony  of  Mr. 
Reynolds,  page  4636.  My  note  simply  shows  that  the  bonds  were  is- 
sued, rate  of  interest  seven  per-cent,  interest  payable  semi-annually. 
I  don't  seem  to  have  the  record  of  the  term  of  the  bonds  here.  These 
bonds  were  issued  for  property,  and  to  pay  debts  incurred  in  con- 
struction of  the  works.  I  did  not  make  any  analysis  as  to  which  of 
these  bonds  were  issued  for  property,  because  they  came  in  to  pay 
debts  that  had  already  been  incurred  by  the  company  by  the  pur- 
chase of  property,  and  in  the  construction  of  works.  The  bonds 
issued  in  1875  were  issued  in  exchange  for  property,  but  as  to  the  154 
previous  bonds,  I  don't  know  the  details  of  that.  I  know  that  they 
were  issued  for  debts  incurred  by  the  company,  for  the  reason  that 
the  company  had  a  construction  account  extending  over  all  of  these 
years,  as  shown  by  exhibits  in  the  1903  case,  prepared  by  Mr.  Rey- 
nolds for  the  company,  and  by  Mr.  Wenzelberger  for  the  City.  I 
had  no  means  of  checking  whether  the  money  actually  went  into 
property  or  structures.  I  simply  exhibited  the  figures  as  shown  by 
those  two  accountants  as  having  -come  from  the  books  of  the  com- 
pany, and  showing  the  construction  costs,  and  these  matters  which  I 
have  already  detailed.  During  the  period  we  are  speaking  of  here, 
when  the  face  of  the  stock  aggregated  $8,000,000,  I  think  it  was  held 
by  a  number  of  people.  These  debts  that  were  paid,  or  for  which 
stock  or  bonds  were  issued,  were  not  debts  appearing  as  due  to  in- 
dividuals interested  in  the  company.  For  the  years  1858  and  1859, 
and  earlier  years,  it  was  true  that  in  the  San  Francisco  City  Water  155 
Works,  the  stock  that  was  issued  to  Bensley  and  Von  Schmidt,  and 
Chabot,  was  issued  to  them  for  accounts  purporting  to  have  been 
incurred  by  them  in  behalf  of  the  company,  but  I  thought  your  ques- 
tions related  now  to  bond  issues  of  which  we  had  been  speaking, 
from  1867  down  to  1875.  That  appears  in  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Rey- 
nolds and  Mr.  Wenzelberger  that  small  amounts  were  paid  to  those 
men  named.  They  were  $6,000  and  $8,000  at  a  time.  For  example, 
in  the  year  1858  the  total  amount,  including  those  payments,  was 
$185,000  that  was  put  into  the  plant. 

To  go  back  to  the  bonds,  those  bonds  appear  to  have  been  issued 
in  exchange  for  property,  and  in  payment  of  debts.  I  thought  that 
from  the  records  made  by  Wenzelberger  and  Reynolds  that  it  was  for 
the  cost  of  the  property,  the  cost  to  the  company  of  the  properties, 

41 


Sharon 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

156  and  the  structures  which  they  had  put  in.    The  inference  is  from  the 
exhibit  which  he  placed  in  evidence.    I  think  it  was  called  Exhibit  101, 
which  is  the  new  construction  and  general  construction  figures  of  the 
company.    They  are  taken  from  the  company's  books.    I  cannot  show 
from  the  Exhibit  101,  wherein  it  appears  that  the  $320,000  worth  of 
bonds  were  issued  for  property  at  its  actual  cost,  not  to  the  company 
from  the  individual,  but  to  the  individual,  for  the  reason  I  have  no 
statement  of  what  the  company  actually  owed  on  borrowed  money 
at  the  time  these  bonds  were  issued.    That  is  not  shown  in  the  exhibit. 
I  did  not  assume  or  deduce  from  the  fact  that  the  bonds  were  issued 
fully  paid  up  that  the  value  of  the  property  was  equal  to  the  value  of 
the  bonds  at  par,  because  the  company  has  always  owed  money,  and 
has  owed  money  in  excess  of  its  bond  issues.     I  did  not  make  any 
examination  to  enable  me  to  say  that  the  property  was  worth  the  value 
of  these  stocks  and  bonds  each  year  since  1865  to  date.    I  only  know 
in  a  general  way  what  the  nature  of  the  debts  was  in  payment  of 
which  the  bonds  were  issued,  and  that  it  was  property  bought,  and 

157  for  structures  put  in  by  the  company.    It  does  not  appear  to  what  par- 
ticular individual  those  bonds  were  issued.    I  got  the  item  of  $65,500 
from  the  minutes,  November  15,  1876.    That  is  an  entry  showing  that 
sixty-nine  bonds  of  the  first  mortgage  bond  issue  were  paid  for  prop- 
erty bought  at  Lake  Merced.    The  bonds  were  sold  at  $95.00— $69,000 
of  bonds  sold  at  $95.00,  showing  $65,550.     The  minutes  state  that 
these  bonds  were  exchanged  for  Lake  Merced  property.     It  was  an 
exchange  of  bonds  for  property.     Those  were  first  mortgage  bonds, 
dated  September  1,  1876,  term  30  years,  interest  six  per-cent,  payable 
semi-annually,  interest  payable  March  1st,  and  September  1st  each 
year. 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  OLNEY. 

I  have  not  a  note  that  shows  to  whom  the  bonds  were  issued.  I 
don't  remember  that  it  did  show  that.  The  people  were  not  inter- 
ested in  the  company.  I  think  they  were  people  who  owned  property 
in  Lake  Merced  which  the  company  wanted  to  buy. 

CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.   STEINHART. 

I  do  not  know  that  for  a  fact,  only  from  the  minutes.  I  infer 
that  it  is  so  from  the  minutes. 

158  (Discussion  by  attorneys  as  to  the  original  ownership  of  Lake 
Merced  properties). 

The  next  item  of  $480,000  is  a  minus  quantity  there,  and  was  de- 
ducted from  the  investment  because  of  the  fact  that  those  bonds  which 
were  issued  in  1867,  called  the  second  series  bonds,  were  redeemed  be- 
tween May  1st  and  August  30th,  1877,  and  as  they  were  no  longer  in 
existence,  I  made  the  deduction  from  that  total  amount.  They  were 
redeemed  at  par,  $500,000, — but  there  was  an  additional  bond  issue  of 

42 


SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

the  first  mortgage  bonds,  which  left  this  net  result  of  $480,000.  The 
$320,000  par  value  bonds  were  not  redeemed  at  that  time,  but  in  the 
two  years  1867  and  1868,  that  was  a  redemption  of  $500,000.  That 
did  not  mean  an  issue  of  $500,000  first  mortgage  bonds ;  there  was  no 
issuance  at  all  in  that  year  of  first  mortgage  bonds,  nor  did  it  mean 
an  exchange,  for  the  reason  that  the  total  bond  issue  outstanding  was 
reduced  by  $480,000.  These  were  probably  redeemed  in  cash,  but  I 
don't  know  how  they  were  redeemed.  There  were  no  bonds  sold  for  the 
purpose.  The  company  may  have  borrowed  the  money  from  someone 
to  redeem  these,  and  afterwards  paid  it.  I  don't  know  that  the  com- 
pany made  the  money.  That  is  a  lot  of  money  to  make.  I  find  in  1877 
from  the  minutes  that  there  was  $250,000  borrowed  from  the  Savings 
&  Loan  Society ;  $150,000  borrowed  from  John  Parrott ;  $50,000  bor- 
rowed from  G.  W.  Granniss ;  $40,000  borrowed  from  N.  Luning ;  $36,- 
000  borrowed  from  Wm.  Sharon ;  $50,000  borrowed  from  0.  Eldrich ; 
$50,000  borrowed  from  Jerome  Lincoln;  $50,000  borrowed  from  the 
Security  Savings  Bank;  $50,000  borrowed  from  John  L.  Gardner; 
$20,000  borrowed  from  H.  W.  Halleck;  $75,000  borrowed  from  the 
Masonic  Savings  Bank;  $36,000  borrowed  from  William  Sharon. 
Those  are  all  running  through  the  year  of  1877.  The  minute  en- 
tries show  the  Savings  &  Loan  Society,  the  first  item  I  read,  as  April 
16,  1877.  The  list  of  others  is  as  follows:  April  16,  1877,  May  1, 
1877,  May  13,  June  1,  June  25,  August  15,  September  17,  November 
15.  I  think  those  are  all  the  references  in  the  minutes.  I  endeavored 
to  get  them  all  out.  and  I  think  I  got  them  all  out.  The  next  item, 
$2,536,833,  I  had  a  little  difficulty  in  establishing  the  amount  for  that  160 
year,  due  to  the  fact  that  the  minutes,  and  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Rey- 
nolds straddled  over  a  period,  and  while  I  had  the  total  amount  as 
shown  in  1880,  I  did  not  quite  know  about  the  distribution,  or  the  sale 
of  those  first  mortgage  bonds  as  of  the  year  1879.  I  had  a  little  dif- 
ficulty in  getting  the  exact  year.  Some  of  them  may  have  been 
bought  in  1878.  There  was  a  period  there  that  was  straddled  over, 
and  I  could  not  account  for  it.  They  were  the  thirty-year  six  per- 
cent mortgage  bonds.  The  items  began  in  the  minutes  of  November 
1st,  1877,  and  some  were  in  exchange  for  other  bonds. 

This  record  was  not  very  complete.  It  is  fragmentary.  This  161 
item  that  I  just  read  of  November  1,  1877,  shows  that  the  President 
was  authorized  to  purchase  back  103  of  the  bonds  issued  in  1875 ;  that 
was  the  $1,000,000  bond  issue.  Those  bonds  bore  interest  at  the  rate 
of  seven  per-cent,  and  the  company  from  1877  on  to  1881  or  1882  re- 
deemed those  as  opportunity  afforded,  by  exchanging  them  for  first 
mortgage  bonds  bearing  six  per-cent.  The  minute  entry  is  November 
lrJL877.  The  President  was  authorized  to  purchase  103  Calaveras 
bonds,  paying  for  them  at  the  rate  of  90  cents  on  the  dollar.  The 
bonds  that  were  redeemed  there  were  the  bonds  that  were  known  as 
the  Calaveras  bonds.  It  was  the  $1,000,000  purchase  in  1875.  They 


Sharon 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

were  issued  for  the  purchase  of  Calaveras  and  Vallejo  Mills  property. 
It  included  part  of  the  Calaveras  property,  the  Vallejo  Mills  and 
whatever  lands  were  down  the  Alameda  Creek;  there  was  an  acreage 

162  in  them.    It  included  the  Vallejo  Mills  aqueduct. 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  OLNEY. 

I  do  not  think  that  the  people  from  whom  this  Calaveras  and 
Vallejo  Mills  property  were  purchased  were  people  who  were  inter- 
ested in  the  company.  I  think  it  was  a  separate  concern. 

CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.   STEINHART. 

Yes,  the  entry  of  November  1,  1877,  shows  that  the  President  was 
authorized  to  buy  the  $103,000  worth  of  bonds  at  90  per-cent  on  the 
dollar.  In  figuring  up  the  amount  actually  received  of  $2,536,833,  I 
did  not  take  that  on  a  basis  of  90  cents  on  the  dollar.  First  mortgage 
bonds  were  issued  at  par  for  the  other  bonds  bought  back  at  a  discount. 
If  the  company  issued  a  bond  of  $1,000  for  another  bond  for  90  cents, 
I  included  the  $1,000  expenditure  as  of  that  year.  If  the  bonds  were 
selling  for  50  cents  on  the  dollar,  and  they  were  issued  at  par,  I  would 
nevertheless  have  entered  under  colum  three,  par,  for  the  reason  that 
they  bought  back  the  bonds  that  were  carrying  seven  per-cent  and  ex- 
changed therefor  bonds  on  which  they  had  to  pay  six  per-cent.  The 
President  did  not  sell  them  at  90  cents  on  the  dollar.  The  other  bonds 
were  issued  at  100  cents  on  the  dollar.  He  bought  back  the  Calaveras 
bonds  at  90  cents  on  the  dollar.  If  he  issued  $1,000  worth  of  first 

163  mortgage  bonds,  he  got  more  than  $1,000  worth  face  value  of  the  older 
mortgage  back  again.    The  other  items  entering  into  that  $2,536,833  is 
an  item  of  January  15,  1879,  an  exchange  at  par  for  470  of  the  first 
mortgage  bonds.    That  was  another  exchange  of  the  Calaveras  bonds 
on  June  16th.    Because  of  the  fact  that  it  was  an  exchange  at  par,  I 
allowed  the  full  amount  under  column  3.     The  next  item  of  June  16, 
1879,  in  the  minutes  state,  that  to  that  date  3,600  of  the  first  mortgage 
bonds  had  been  issued.    They  had  been  sold  up  to  the  date  June  16, 
1879.    This  is  one  of  the  items  I  did  not  get.    I  said  things  were  a  little 
fragmentary  and  straddled  over  a  period  there,  but  it  is  in  the  minutes 
of  June  16,  1879.     The  minutes  show  the  issuance  of  parts  of  these 
bonds.    The  minutes  authorize  that  7,000  bonds  of  the  corporation  be 
issued  in  sums  of  $1,000  each,  payable  thirty  days  after  date,  with  in- 
terest at  the  rate  of  six  per-cent,  and  states  that  only  3,600  of  these 

164  bonds  have  been  issued,  and  provides  that  the  President  proceed  to 
have  the  other  bonds  printed  and  issued.    I  took  that  as  one  of  the  evi- 
dences that  they  were.    In  the  San  Francisco  ' '  Bulletin ' '  of  June  18,x 
1879,  I  saw  a  record  which  stated  that  the  company  had  recently  auth- 
orized and  sold  $3,000,000  worth  of  first  mortgage  bonds  at  95.    They 
did  not  know  just  what  the  rate  was.    Taking  all  these  various  records 
that  I  have  indicated  together  with  the  statement  as  shown  of  the 

44 


SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

actual  discount  which  the  company  had  suffered  on  the  issuance  of 
these  bonds  from  the  Reynolds  exhibit — I  have  not  the  number  of  it, 
but  it  is  an  exhibit  entitled  "Bonds  outstanding"  in  which  is  shown 
the  distribution  of  the  first  mortgage,  second  mortgage,  third  mortgage, 
and  general  mortgage  bonds  of  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Co., — Major 
Dockweiler  informs  me  that  that  is  Reynold's  Exhibit  105;  from  all. 
of  those  evidences,  and  also  from  the  amount  of  coupon  interest  that 
was  paid,  which  I  got  from  the  Reynold's  exhibit,  and  also  from  Wen- 
zelberger's  exhibit,  I  arrived  at  the  conclusion  that  those  bonds  were 
outstanding  as  of  date  December  31,  1879;  I  was  not  certain  as  to 
whether  they  were  all  issued  in  1879,  or  some  of  them  were  issued  in 
1878.  They  could  not  have  been  issued  in  1879.  The  record  shows 
that  they  were  sold  in  1879.  For  example,  the  minutes  that  you  refer 
to,  and  the  discount  item  as  shown  by  Reynolds  and  Wenzelberger, 
show  that  the  discount  occurred  in  1879,  and  it  was  entered  up 
in  1879.  In  Reynold's  Exhibit  105  there  is  a  discount  shown  there  of 
$377,167.30.  I  have  not  the  page  reference  here,  but  Reynolds  shows  165 
in  his  testimony  that  the  discount  was  as  follows :  July,  $256,864.20 ; 
August  1879,  $20,303.20;  October,  $40,000;  November,  $60,000. 
These  are  on  pages  4787  and  88  of  Reynold's  testimony.  The  next 
item  was  a  redemption  of  the  bonds  issued  in  1870,  $500,000.  Rey- 
nolds, on  page  4634  and  4636,  states  that  they  were  redeemed  and  paid 
for  in  cash,  and  that  the  redemption  took  place  between  February  27, 
1880,  and  April  26,  1880.  I  have  not  in  this  list  of  money  borrowed, 
anything  for  1880.  I  don't  know  that  there  is  anything  in  the  min- 
utes. I  will  investigate  and  see  if  I  can  find  anything.  The  minus 
sign  in  both  columns  2  and  3  is  a  reduction  of  the  face  value  of  bonds 
outstanding,  and  also  of  the  actual  contribution.  There  is  a  deduc- 
tion made  in  both  columns;  $500,000  of  those  bonds  were  issued  in  166 
1870,  the  aggregate  bond  issues  show  that  $10,000  more  had  been  re- 
deemed. During  this  period,  as  I  stated  before,  the  company  was 
actually  redeeming  some  of  the  Calaveras  bonds  in  1875.  It  would 
be  possible  that  $10,000  of  those  bonds  that  were  redeemed  were  Cal- 
averas bonds ;  I  don 't  know  that  it  was  that  way. 

(Witness  admits  a  discrepancy  in  the  second  column  where  the 
minus  $480,000  should  not  be  carried  into  the  second  column  instead 
of  the  $20,000.) 

FOURTH  HEARING.  JULY  16,  1915. 

Witness  MR.  JOHN  JOSEPH  SHARON. 

CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.   STEINHART.  168 

-  I  think  it  is  a  fact  that  the  item  appearing  in  ''Exhibit  12-bb", 
under  year  1876,  under  column  "Face  of  Bonds  $69,000"  and  the  item 
in  third  column  under ' '  Actual ' '  $65,550  were  bonds  issued  for  the  pur- 
chase of  stock  of  the  Clear  Lake  Water  Co.  I  had  in  mind  another  tran- 

45 


SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

saction  with  the  Clear  Lake  Water  Co.,  the  purchase  of  riparian  rights 

169  at  Merced.    This  particular  company  was  a  corporation  owning  rights 
and  property  at  Clear  Lake.    That  property  was  never  put  into  use. 

(Objection  by  Mr.  Steinhart  to  "Exhibit  12-bb"). 

These  minute  books  are  not  the  original  minute  books  of  the 

170  Spring  Valley  Water  Works,  or  the  San  Francisco  Water  Works  Co. 

(Discussion  by  attorneys  over  the  admission  of  minute  books  into 
the  records). 

174  DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  MCCUTCHEN. 

In  former  testimony  Mr.  Wenzelberger  and  Mr.  Reynolds  agreed 
within  $9,003  as  to  the  total  investment  of  $28,000,000. 

(Discussion  by  attorneys  regarding  Reynolds'  and  Wenzelberger 's 
testimony). 

Questioned  by  the  Master. 

178  Besides  Reynolds'  testimony  and  the  minute  book,  I  referred  also 
to  Mr.  Wenzelberger 's  exhibit  from  which  I  deduced  from  his  charges 
or  statement,  showing  coupon  interest  paid, — I  made  certain  deduc- 
tions from  that  as  to  the  outstanding  issue  of  bonds  of  these  various 
issues. 

(Ruling  on  Steinhart 's  objection  reserved). 

179  CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.   STEINHART. 

In  minute  book  "C",  page  68,  date  November  16,  1876,  appears 
the  following  statement  with  reference  to  the  69  first  mortgage  bonds 
"On  motion  of  Mr.  Norris,  seconded  by  Mr.  Forbes,  it  was  resolved 
"that  the  action  of  the  president  in  purchasing  9,134  shares  of  the 
"capital  stock  of  the  Clear  Lake  Water  Co.,  and  paying  therefor  69 
"of  the  first  mortgage  bonds  of  this  company  at  95  cents,  amounting 
"to  $65,550,  and  the  accrued  interest  thereon,  amounting  to  $839.50, 
"and  the  interest  on  said  accrued  interest  for  108  days  at  one  per 
"cent  per  month,  $30.24" — the  total  of  the  two  latter  items  being 
$869.74— "also  check  to  order  of  Clear  Lake  Water  Co.  for  $270.50. 
"Together  with  cash  amounting  to  $41,505.  And  the  notes  of  the 
"company  in  favor  of  A.  Hayward,  dated  the  8th  and  13th  instant 
"respectively,  one  payable  four  months  after  date  at  10%  per  annum 
"for  $37,986.49,  and  the  other  payable  on  or  before  12  months  after 
"date,  with  interest  at  10%  per  annum  for  $12,000,  be  approved". 
The  total  of  those  columns  being  $158,181.73.  "Carried  unani- 
mously". 

Referring  to  table  "bb"  there  are  no  bonds  appearing  prior  to 
1867.  The  bonds  issued  prior  to  that  date,  amounting  to  $69,500  were 
issued  by  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Works,  and  were  redeemed  May  1 

180  to  May  4,  1868.    Turning  to  minute  book  "B",  page  249,  the  follow- 
ing appears  as  to  the  security  of  the  bonds  of  1867.    "Resolved,  that 
' '  in  the  opinion  of  this  board  it  is  not  necessary  or  expedient  that  pay- 

46 


Sharon 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

"ment  of  said  bonds  should  be  secured  by  mortgage  upon  the  property 
"of  the  corporation". 

The  bonds  that  appear  on  page  251  were  sold  at  a  premium,  and 
page  252  there  were  a  number  that  sold  at  par,  and  the  difference  in 
the  total,  205,  was  so  small  that  I  thought  possibly  the  expense  in- 
curred in  the  sale  of  them  would  at  least  have  amounted  to  that  much, 
and  I  rounded  it  off  by  dropping  the  $205  premium  in  this  issue  of 
$155,000,  and  later  on,  at  the  sale  of  other  bonds,  aggregating,  as  I 
have  it,  $320,000  in  the  year  1867  (column  2),  there  was  no  evidence 
that  any  of  the  other  bonds,  the  difference  between  $155,000  and  $320,- 
000,  had  been  sold  except  at  par. 

Turning  to  page  263,  minute  book  "B",  under  date  of  June  15, 
1867,  the  following  appears:  "Gentlemen:  Our  receipts  last  year 
"were  $536,374.16  against  $468,754.28  in  the  year  previous,  say  1865 
"and  1866,  showing  excess  in  favor  of  the  year  1866  and  67  of  $67,- 
"619.88;  our  general  expenses  have  been  about  $60,000.  We  paid  in  181 
"dividends  to  stockholders  $360,000,  leaving  a  balance  of  $116,374.16. 
"We  had  in  the  city  June  1,  1866,  337,868  feet  of  pipe  laid;  during 
"this  year  we  have  laid  50,805  feet,  making  a  total  of  388,724  feet,  of 
"about  75  miles,  besides  pipes  laid  outside  of  the  city. 

"Gentlemen:  You  will  remember  that  at  your  last  meeting  you 
' '  authorized  the  board  of  trustees  to  borrow  on  the  Co.  credit  $500,000 
"to  complete  all  our  projected  works,  we  have  issued  our  bonds  for 
"$162,000,  which  with  the  separate  income  of  the  year,  was  employed 
"in  the  payment  of  our  works  now  in  construction.  These  bonds  cer- 
"tainly  present  the  best  and  surest  investment  for  widows'  and  or- 
' '  phans '  money.  They  yield  a  good  percentage,  and  have  a  long  num- 
"ber  of  years  to  run.  Our  income  and  its  slow  but  steady  increase 
' '  are  the  best  proofs  of  my  assertion ' '. 

These  $162,000  of  bonds  are  part  of  the  bonds  contained  in  my 
item  of  1867,  and  I  want  to  say  in  connection  with  that  item  of  $320,- 
000  that  in  going  over  the  records  with  Major  Dockweiler  I  found  he 
had  some  data  from  the  books  of  the  company  which  I  did  not  have  in 
making  my  analysis.  I  believe  I  stated  the  other  day  in  talking  about 
these  bond  issues,  that  there  was  some  uncertainty  in  my  mind  as 
to  the  year  in  which  they  were  issued,  and  I  made  certain  deductions 
from  the  charges  shown  by  Mr.  Wenzelberger  and  Mr.  Reynolds 
for  coupon  interest  paid.  In  this  particular  case,  the  bonds  may  have 
been  issued  close  to  the  end  of  the  year  1867  or  the  beginning  of  the 
year  1868,  and  I  divided  it  in  the  way  that  appeared.  Major  Dock- 
weiler let  me  have  a  list  yesterday  showing  the  date  when  these  bonds 
were  issued,  and  they  were  all  issued  during  the  year  1867,  so  that 
that  'column  should  be  $500,000  for  1867,  and  there  should  not  be  any- 
thing appearing  for  1868.  Referring  to  (column  2),  $1,000,000  face  182 
of  bonds,  and  in  (column  3)  $1,000,000  actual,  I  think  I  said  I  did 
not  know,  the  other  day,  the  terms  of  these  bonds,  but  they  were  20 

47 


Sharon 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

year  bonds  with  the  privilege  of  exchange  within  two  and  one-half 
years  for  six  per  cent,  thirty  year  gold  bonds  of  the  company. 

Referring  to  bonds  of  1877,  that  should  be  minus  $480,000,  the 
same  figure  as  appears  in  the  second  column.  This  does  not  affect  the 
total  at  the  bottom  of  the  column,  because  they  were  bonds  that  were 
redeemed  and  did  not  go  into  the  total  of  those  outstanding.  Taking 

183  the  bonds  of  1879,  I  got  that  item  from  several  sources.    The  minutes 
of  1877  showed  that  $470,000  of  the  first  mortgage  bonds  were  ex- 
changed for  $470,000  of  the  fourth  series  of  Calaveras  bonds,  and  in 

1879  $393,000.    The  minutes  state  $375,000,  but  Reynolds,  page  4789, 
and  also  page  4640,  states  that  there  were  $393,000  redeemed  by  the  first 
mortgage  bonds.    I  had  a  statement  furnished  by  the  former  secretary 
of  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Co.,  Mr.  Ames,  which  showed  the  out- 
standing stock  and  bond  issues  from  1880  to  1903,  and  at  the  end  of 

1880  the  bond  issue  outstanding  at  that  time  was  $3,969,000 ;  so  I  de- 
ducted from  the  $3,969,000  the  first  mortgage  bonds  issued  in  1876, 
amounting  to  $69,000 ;  the  first  mortgage  bonds  issued  in  1877,  $20,000, 
and  the  first  mortgage  bonds  issued  in  1877  to  redeem  the  Calaveras 
bonds,  $103,000,  and  the  first  mortgage  bonds  issued  January,  1879, 
to  redeem  Calaveras  bonds  of  $470,000,  also  the  first  mortgage  bonds 
issued  December,  1879,  to  redeem  Calaveras  bonds  of  $393,000,  making 
a  total  of  the  first  mortgage  bonds  issued  for  those  purposes  of  $1,055,- 

184  000,  which  deducted  from  the  $3,969,000  outstanding  of  1880,  left  a 
net  figure  of  $2,914,000  for  the  year  1879.    Mr.  Reynolds,  in  his  testi- 
mony, shows,  pages  4787  and  4788,  that  the  discount  on  the  bonds 
issued  in  1879  occurred  in  July,  August,  October  and  November,  the 
total  discount  being  $377,167.30.     I  also  had  a  reference  to  an  old 
newspaper  record,  which  showed  in  the  "Bulletin"  of  June,  1879,  that 
the  company  had  recently  placed  $3,000,000  of  bonds,  6%  first  mort- 
gage, in  New  York  at  the  reported  figure  of  90  net.    Taking  the  first 
computation  that  I  had,  of  $2,914,000  and  applying  the  discount  as 
shown  by  Mr.  Reynolds,  I  find  an  equivalent  selling  price  of  87  as 
against  90  as  shown  in  the  "Bulletin".    I  have  not  any  other  infor- 
mation than  that,  except  in  the  way  of  coupon  interest  that  was  paid 
according  to  Mr.  "Wenzelberger 's  testimony,  but  that  coupon  interest 
may  have  included  interest  that  was  brought  forward  from  the  other 
bond  issues,  so  that  it  did  not  check  out  quite  exactly,  within  about 
$100,000.    I  did  not  use  the  "Bulletin"  as  a  basis,  but  simply  as  an 
assumption. 

Mr.  Ames'  report  was  a  statement  furnished  to  Mr.  Schussler  in 
1903  and  1904,  showing  the  outstanding  bonds  and  stock  issue.  This 
was  in  the  engineering  record  files  of  the  company  but  I  have  not  it 

185  here  with  me.    I  will  arrange  to  let  Major  Dockweiler  see  it. 

These  were  the  first  mortgage  bonds  issued  in  1876,  dated  Sep- 
tember 1,  1876,  30-year  bonds,  that  bore  interest  at  the  rate  of  6%,  in- 
terest payable  semi-annually,  March  1  and  September  1  of  each  year. 

48 


Sharon 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

For  the  issuance  of  the  $69,000,  I  refer  to  minute  entry  of  November 
15,  1876 ;  for  the  $20,000,  I  refer  to  the  minute  entry  October  15,  1877. 
On  page  100,  minute  book  "C",  under  date  of  October  15,  1877,  the 
following  appears : 

"On  motion  of  Colonel  Mayne,  seconded  by  Colonel  Granniss, 
"Resolved  that  this  board  ratify  the  action  of  the  president  on  the 
"purchase  from  Mr.  J.  M.  Wilson  of  about  40  acres  near  Laguna 
"Merced  for  20  of  the  first  mortage  bonds  of  this  company,  carried." 
I  have  a  minute  entry  also  as  of  date  November  1,  1877,  which  is 
the  minute  entry  for  the  purchase  of  certain  of  the  Calaveras 
bonds  at  90  cents  on  the  dollar.  At  page  103,  minute  book  "C", 
under  date  November  1,  1877,  the  following  appears: 

"Resolved  that  the  president  be  authorized  to  purchase  103  of  185 y2 
"the  Calaveras  bonds  amounting  at  par  to  $103,000,  he  paying  for 
"the  same  90  cents  on  par  and  he  be  further  authorized  to  borrow 
"such  amount  thereon  as  he  may  deem  advisable."  In  the  income 
account  or  profit  and  loss  account  of  Mr.  Wenzelberger  in  his  exhibit 
101,  the  discount  is  shown  of  $10,300. 

The  next  minute  entry,  I  think,  on  page  145  of  book  "C",  min- 
utes of  January  15,  1879,  reads  as  follows: 

"Resolved:  that  the  action  of  the  president  in  exchanging  470       186 
"first  mortgage  bonds  value  par  $1,000  each,  bearing  6%  interest — 
"for  470  fourth  series   (Calaveras  bonds)   value  par  $1,000  each, 
"bearing  1%  interest,  be  ratified  by  this  board". 

The  next  item  is  1880.  That  shows  in  column  2  face  of  bonds 
minus  $510,000,  and  refers  to  the  redemption  of  the  bonds  issued 
as  shown  in  the  year  1870,  known  as  the  third  series  bonds.  These 
bonds  were  dated  April  1,  1870,  term  10  years,  interest  9%,  payable 
semi-annually,  on  April  1,  and  October  1  of  each  year.  Mr.  Rey- 
nolds' testimony,  pages  4634  to  4636,  stated  that  they  were  re- 
deemed between  February  27  and  April  26,  1880,  so  that  I  made  a 
deduction  of  these  $500,000  bonds  in  that  year.  I  have  not  a  note 
here  showing  in  what  way  that  redemption  was  made,  but  my  recol- 
lection is  that  they  were  paid  off  in  cash.  I  will  explain  why  if  there 
is  a  redemption  of  $500,000  bonds  how  I  got  the  figure  $510,000. 
From  the  redemption  of  the  Calaveras  bonds  of  $103,000  in  1877,  187 
and  the  $470,000  in  January  1879,  and  of  the  $375,000  which  I  took 
as  $393,000  because  of  Reynolds'  testimony,  showing  that  as  ap- 
pearing in  the  ledger,  the  total  redemption  up  to  the  end  of  1879  was 
$966,000  of  the  Calaveras  bond  issue,  leaving  $34,000  outstanding 
as  of  the  end  of  1879,  or  beginning  of  1880,  and  from  this  statement 
of  Mr.  Ames  that  I  have  already  referred  to  in  1880,  there  was  only 
$24,000  of  these  Calaveras  bonds  outstanding.  The  difference  be- 
tween the  34  and  the  24  being  the  10  which  I  account  for  here. 

49 


Sharon 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

Questioned  by  Master. 

The  next  column,  $515,137,  is  an  error,  for  the  reason  that  the 
deduction  was  made  of  the  actual  amount  received  for  these  bonds 
in  1870;  the  bonds  were  sold  for  $505,137  at  a  premium,  and  in  this 
table  the  deduction  was  made  for  that;  that  should  be  minus 
$510,000  in  column  3  for  1880. 

The  next  item  in  column  2,  face  of  bonds  1884,  shows  the  issu- 
ance of  $500,000  of  bonds.  That  was  obtained  from  minute  book 
"C",  pages  435  to  437,  as  showing  an  increase  as  between  October 
1  and  October  15  of  the  year  1884  of  the  $500,000  bond  issue.  Mr. 
Reynolds,  on  page  4595,  states  that  those  bonds  were  sold  October  30, 
1884,  for  $565,000,  also  he  states  on  page  4788  that  ledger  F,  page 
462,  shows  a  premium  of  $65,000  less  debit  by  cash  $2,500,  leaving  a 
net  premium  of  $62,500.  I  entered  the  $500,000  face  value  in  column 

188  2,  and  the  actual  amount  received  $562,500  in  column  3.    These  were 
first  mortgage  6%  bonds  dated  September  1,  1876. 

Referring  to  the  minutes  of  August  3,  1885,  which  show  an  ex- 
change of  18  Calaveras  bonds  for  18  first  mortgage  bonds ;  this  does 
not  appear  in  my  records.  The  face  value  of  the  bonds,  and  the 
actual  amount  received  do  not  differ.  This  would  not  account  for 
the  fact  that  I  do  not  find  apparently  the  instance  of  the  redemption 
of  these  additional  $10,000  bonds,  as  the  redemption  was  in  1880 
from  34  Calaveras  to  24,  and  some  time  between  then  and  1881  or 
82,  the  bonds  had  been  further  reduced  to  18  bonds,  and  in  the  year 
that  you  speak  of  they  were  wiped  out  entirely,  which  was  the  final 
consummation  of  the  matter,  being  the  exchange  of  18  Calaveras 
bonds  for  18  first  mortage  bonds. 

The  next  item  is  1887,  and  refers  to  the  second  mortgage  bond. 
Turning  to  the  minutes  of  1886,  December  1st,  page  18  of  minute 
book  "D",  the  following  appears: 

"Whereas,  it  has  become  and  innecessary  in  the  judgment  of 
"this  board  that  this  corporation  should  proceed  without  delay  to 
"construct  the  lower  Crystal  Springs  Reservoir  and  to  provide  a 

189  "supply  of  water  equal  to  the  capacity  of  the  same  by  procuring  the 
"necessary  property  and  water  rights  and  connecting  the  said  reser- 
"voir  with  the  water  sheds  of  the  San  Francisquito,  Pescadero,  San 
"Gregorio,  Calaveras  and  other  sources,  a  work  involving  large  ex- 
penditures of  money  and  more  than  quadrupling  the  capacity  of  the 
"works  of  the  company: 

"Now,  therefore,  resolved:  that  in  the  judgment  of  this  board 
"it  is  for  the  best  interests  of  the  company  that  the  funds  neces- 
"sary  to  meet  this  extraordinary  expenditure  and  to  pay  off  the 
"present  floating  indebtedness  of  the  corporation  should  be  raised  by 
"the  issue  of  bonds  of  the  corporation  from  time  to  time  as  funds 
"are  needed;  and  to  that  end  be  it  further  resolved  that  the  execu- 
tive officers  call  a  meeting  of  the  stockholders  of  this  corporation, 

50 


Sharon 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

"giving  the  notice  thereof  required  by  law,  at  which  there  shall  be, 
"submitted  to  the  stockholders  a  proposition  to  authorize  the  board 
' '  of  trustees  to  prepare  and  cause  to  be  executed  10,000  bonds  of  this 
"corporation  in  the  sum  of  $1,000  each,  bearing  date  on  a  given  date 
"to  be  therein  named,  and  payable  30  years  after  date,  with  the  privi- 
' '  lege  of  redemption  at  any  time  after  the  1st  day  of  September,  1906, 
"with  interest  at  the  rate  of  3%  per  annum,  payable  semi-annually, 
"with  proper  interest  coupons  thereto  attached,  and  as  security  for 
"the  payment  of  said  bonds  and  the  interest  coupons  thereto  attached 
"to  make,  execute  and  deliver  and  to  cause  the  same  to  be  duly  re- 
"  corded  as  mortgage  upon  the  property  of  the  corporation  held  and 
"used  in  connection  with  and  as  a  part  of  its  system  of  works." 

That  interest  rate  was  changed  to  4%  payable  quarterly  and 
the  authorization  was  reduced  from  $10,000,000  to  $5,000,000,  so 
that  the  rate  of  interest  that  those  bonds  bore  was  4%,  interest  190 
payable  quarterly.  The  item  as  to  issuance  of  those  bonds  I  got 
from  the  minutes  of  April  25,  1887,  page  97  of  minute  book  "D", 
wherein  appears  the  following: 

"The  balance  of  bonds  to  be  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  finance 
"committee,  being  in  number  $513,000,  for  sale,  not  to  be  disposed 
"of  at  a  less  premium  than  one-half  of  one  per  cent."  These  bonds 
were  sold  at  a  premium  60  one-hundredths  percent,  as  shown  on 
page  97  of  minute  book  "  D  ".  I  have  another  list  that  evidently  anti- 
dates  that — my  date  must  be  wrong — showing  the  sale  of  the  fol- 
lowing bonds: 

60  bonds  at  1.00% 
20  bonds  at  l.OO1^ 

5  bonds  at  1.00% 
80  bonds  at  1.00% 
45  bonds  at  1.00  3-16 

5  bonds  at  1.0014 
12  bonds  at  1.00% 

7  bonds  at  1.00% 

3  bonds  at  1.01 
100  bonds  at  1.00  1-20 
100  bonds  at  1.00  1-10 
50  bonds  at  1.00  3-20 

which  I  got  from  minutes  of  April  25,  1887.  That  is  evidently  a 
wrong  date.  It  came  out  of  the  minutes  though,  and  it  just  pre-  191 
ceded  that  item  of  $513,000,  and  that  makes  up  the  total  of  the  bonds 
together  with  an  issue  as  shown  August  1,  1887,  of  $530,000.  I  de- 
duced that  from  Mr.  Reynolds'  testimony,  page  4798-99,  in  which  he 
stated  that  there  had  been  issued  from  April  1887  to  March  1888, 
$1,582,000  worth  of  second  mortgage  bonds;  there  were  also  shown 
on  the  minutes  of  the  company,  in  the  tabulation  showing  the  out- 

51 


Sharon 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

standing  indebtedness,  an  increase  in  the  first  mortgage  bond  from 
$4,493,000  to  $4,975,000 ;  that  is,  by  a  face  amount  of  $482,000. 

The  next  item  is  $1,875,000,  which  I  find  in  the  minutes  as  of 
September  17,  1888,  were  sold  at  $95,  netting  $1,776,500. 

192  The  next  item  is  from  the  minutes  of  August  7,  1890,  and  refers 
to  the  $90. 

The  next  issue  is  November  12,  1891,  $100,000  sold  at  $90,  less 
1%  commission.  The  $83,000  I  find  in  Wenzelberger's  exhibit,  which 
showed  that  in  addition  to  the  discount  there  was  a  commission  and 
expense  of  net  $83,000  instead  of  $89,000,  as  would  be  shown  from 
the  price  less  commission.  The  nature  of  those  expenses  I  do  not 
know.  The  reference  to  the  minutes  as  of  November  12,  1891,  is  as 
follows : 

"Resolved  that  the  action  of  the  president  in  selling  to  the 
"San  Francisco  Savings  Union  100  of  the  second  mortgage  bonds  for 
"the  sum  of  $90,000,  less  $1,000  paid  as  commission,  be  ratified  by 
"the  board." 

The  next  item  appears  on  pages  485  and  486  of  minute  book 

193  "D"  under  date  of  April  14,  1892,  and  in  this  case  I  also  deducted 
the  commission.    Those  were  likewise  sold  at  $90  at  1%  commission. 

The  following  quotation  from  the  letter  referred  to  there,  was 
read  by  Mr.  Steinhart : 

"I  will  pay  to  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Works  Company  at  the 
"rate  of  $90  and  accrued  interest,  one  percent,  for  commission,  for  all 
"of  the  remaining  Spring  Valley  Water  Works  second  mortgage 
"bonds  which  the  company  still  holds  and  I  obligate  myself  to  take 
"and  pay  for  each  month,  at  least  fifty  of  the  Bonds,  I  reserve  to 
"myself  the  right  to  take  as  many  more  and  pay  for  the  same,  as  I 
"may  require.  I  will  pay  interest  to  the  company  at  the  rate  of  5% 
"per  annum  on  amount  due  from  this  date. 

"For  the  fulfillment  of  any  contract  I  will  deposit  with  the 
"Company  ten  of  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Works,  Second  Mort- 
"gage  Bonds,  and  leave  the  same  in  the  possession  of  the  company, 
"until  I  have  paid  for  all  the  Bonds  as  above  specified. 

(Signed)  "Phil  Barth." 

194  The  next  item  is  the  issuance  of  the  third  mortgage  bonds;  I 
refer  now  to  the  minutes  of  June  2,  1898.    The  issue  is  for  $4,000,000 ; 
the  rate  was  4%  per  annum,  payable  quarterly ;  the  date  of  the  bonds 
was  September  1,  1898,  and  the  term  was  8  years.     The  first  evi- 
dences as  to  the  issue  is  as  of  June  3,  1898.    I  have  a  statement  that 
at  page  4800  of  the  Reynolds  testimony,  he  shows  that  there  were 
sold  $1,300,000  mortgage  bonds  from  September  to  December,  1898, 
but  I  have  not  any  further  notes  or  evidences  of  that  sale  than 

195  that.    The  $1,300,000  face  value  was  taken  from  Reynolds' testimony, 
and  the  deduction  was  made  for  the  bond  expense  and  discount  as 

52 


Sharon 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

charged  by  both  Reynolds  and  Wenzelberger  for  that  year,  so  that 
the  net  amount  is  the  difference  between  the  total  as  shown  by  that 
and  the  face  value  of  $1,300,000.  Those  bonds  were  not  sold  at  par, 
as  the  company  received  $1,232,147  for  a  face  value  of  $1,300,000.  I 
could  tell  by  reference  to  Wenzelberger 's  testimony  whether  they 
were  sold  at  par  less  commission,  or  whether  it  was  discount  or 
commission,  but  I  have  not  it  here.  Referring  to  page  462,  minute 
book  "E"  under  date  of  August  6,  1898,  there  appears  a  letter  from 
The  Bank  of  California,  signed  by  Thomas  Brown,  Cashier,  in  which 
it  is  stated: 

"We  will  take  at  par  less  5%  commission,  $1,000,000  deliver- 
"able  during  the  year  1898,  $500,000  deliverable  during  the  year  1899 ; 
''$500,000  deliverable  during  the  year  1900,  provided  that  with  your 
"acceptance  of  this  offer  we  are  to  receive  an  option  to  be  availed  of 
"on  or  before  July  1st,  1900,  to  purchase  the  remaining  $2,000,000  at 
"par  less  21/£%  commission,  upon  terms  as  to  time  and  delivery  similar 
"to  those  offered  above  as  may  be  agreed  upon." 

Mr.  Steinhart  then  stated  that  that  offer  provided  that  the  right       196 
should  be  given  them  to  take  the  remainder  at  par  less  2^2%  com- 
mission,   and    that    the   minutes   showed    an    acceptance,    stated   as 
follows,  on  pages  462-3  of  minute  book  "  E  " : 

"Resolved  that  the  proposal  now  made  by  the  Bank  of  Cali- 
fornia as  contained  in  their  letter  dated  August  6,  1898,  for  the 
"purchase  of  4  percent,  third  mortgage  bonds,  the  issue  of  which  has 
"been  duly  authorized,  be  and  is  hereby  accepted." 

The  next  item  is  $700,000  face  of  bonds,  column  2,  opposite  the 
year  1899,  and  was  taken  from  the  minutes  of  May  11,  1899,  when 
200  bonds  were  sold  at  $95;  September  14,  1889,  when  200  bonds 
were  sold  at  $95 ;  November  16,  1899,  when  200  bonds  were 
sold  at  $95,  being  a  total  of  $700,000.  The  $665,000  is  95%  of 
$700,000.  I  think  that  is  the  way  in  which  I  arrive  at  the  former 
figure.  I  find  in  Wenzelberger 's  exhibit  that  he  had  not  set  out 
that  much  money  as  chargeable  to  that  bond  issue,  and  I  think 
possibly  it  may  have  been  in  some  other  item;  so  that  I  took  the 
amount  as  shown  in  the  minutes  rather  than  to  use  Wenzelberger 's 
figures. 

Referring  to  page  525  of  minute  entries,  it  was  stated  in  the       197 
offer  of  the  Bank  of  California  as  of  August  6,  1898,  that  they  would 
take  $500,000  deliverable  during  the  year  1899,  at  par,  less  5%  com- 
mission.   The  minute  book  reference  is  page  525  of  minute  book  "E", 
and  reads : 

"Resolved,  that  the  president  and  secretary  be  and  they  are 
"hereby  authorized  and  instructed  to  deliver  to  the  Bank  of  Cali- 
fornia on  the  31st  inst.  200  mortgage  bonds,  namely,  1301  to  1500, 
"of  $1,000  each,  under  the  same  terms  and  conditions  as  have  gov- 
"erned  such  bonds  already  sold  and  delivered  to  said  bank."  Each 

53 


Sharon 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

one  of  the  sales  referred  to  under  this  last  item  were  made  under 
the  same  type  of  resolution. 

The  next  item  of  $800,000  face  of  bonds  in  the  year  1900,  I 
found  in  the  minutes  as  of  May  24,  1900,  and  November  8,  1900. 
These  bonds  were  sold  at  2l/o%  commission,  and  the  deduction  made 
by  me  was  the  deduction  of  the  commission.  On  page  199  of  Wen- 
zelberger's  report  he  also  shows  for  both  of  those  that  the  commis- 
sion was  actually  paid.  The  item  as  to  the  deduction  of  the  commis- 
sion, I  got  in  two  ways;  by  taking  the  commission  of  2l/2%  on 
$400,000,  or  $10,000,  which  checked  with  the  commission  as  shown 
by  Mr.  Wenzelberger  in  his  report. 

198  Kef  erring  to  page  111  of  minute  book  "F",  and  to  this  letter 
of  the  Bank  of  California,  that  is  a  letter  in  which  they  availed 
themselves  of  the  option  expressed  in  the  previous  letter. 

The  next  item  is  $900,000,  face  of  bonds,  in  the  year  1901,  and 
was  obtained  from  the  minutes  of  April  25,  1901,  when  300  bonds 
were  sold;  August  29,  1901,  when  300  bonds  were  sold;  and  Novem- 
ber 21,  1901,  when  300  bonds  were  sold.  The  discount  was  for  com- 
mission. In  other  words,  they  were  a  part  of  that  option  still 
with  the  Bank  of  California.  (See  minute  book  "F",  page  197) 
These  bonds,  beginning  with  the  year  1898,  were  all  the  third 
issue  of  4%  eight-year  bonds. 

The  next  item  is  "Face  Value  of  bonds,  $300,000,  in  the  year 
1902",  which  I  obtained  from  the  minutes  as  of  date  May  22,  1902, 
when  $300,000  worth  of  bonds  were  sold  at  2l/o%  commission.  At 
page  301  of  minute  book  "E",  under  date  of  May  22,  1902,  I  find  the 
following : 

"Resolved  that  the  president  and  secretary  be  and  they  are 
"hereby  authorized  and  instructed  to  deliver  to  the  Bank  of  California 
"on  the  31st  inst.  300  third  mortgage  bonds,  Nos.  3701  to  4000,  of  the 

199  "par  value  of  $1,000  each,  in  accordance  with  an  option  given  to  said 
"bank  on  August  11,  1898,  and  referred  to  in  their  letter  to  this  com- 
"pany  dated  May  18,  1900." 

The  next  item  is  an  issue  of  1903,  of  a  face  value  of  $1,000,000, 
of  the  general  mortgage  bonds,  authorized  December  3,  1903,  minutes 
of  December  3,  1903,  and  which  are  the  general  mortgage  bonds  that 
are  now  outstanding.  The  term  is  20  years;  the  interest  is  4%  per 
annum,  payable  semi-annually.  I  don't  know  whether  that  discount 
is  a  commission  or  not,  I  have  the  figure  $95. 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  OLNEY. 

I  did  not  include  in  columns  2  or  3  any  items  of  bonds  issued 
prior  to  1865,  although  bonds  had  been  issued,  because  bonds  issued 
in  1863  were  issued  in  part  payment  for  full  paid  non-assessable 
stock  that  had  been  redeemed,  and  as  I  included  the  total  actual 

54 


SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

value  in  the  stock,  I  did  not  want  to  make  a  double  entry  by  adding 
the  bonds  in. 

CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.   STEINHART. 

It  was  full  paid  stock  that  was  issued  to  Ensign  and  Pioche, 
and  others,  who  were  the  incorporators  of  the  Spring  Valley  Water  200 
Works  for  property  and  rights  utilized  by  the  company  in  supplying 
water  to  the  City  of  San  Francisco.  The  par  value  of  the  stock  was 
$1,000,  which  was  issued  in  1860,  and  in  1863  it  had  been  redeemed 
on  the  basis  of  $450  for  each  $1,000  share.  The  $450  were  paid  partly 
in  bonds,  of  which  the  $69,000  is  the  total,  partly  in  cash,  and  partly 
in  the  issuance  of  assessable  stock  on  which  $280  per  share  had  been 
credited. 

Referring  to  "Exhibit  104"  introduced  by  Mr.  Reynolds  in  the 
1903-4  rate  case,  the  stock  issued  in  1858  it  was  stock  of  the  San 
Francisco  Water  Works,  and  I  have  checked  these  figures,  I  think  in 
their  entirety,  with  the  minutes  of  the  San  Francisco  Water  Works. 
The  reference  to  the  minutes  from  which  I  obtained  that  is  September 
29,  1858.  In  the  minute  book  is  shown  assessment  No.  1,  Bensley 
$45,000 ;  Chabot  $45,000 ;  Von  Schmidt<$45,000.  The  following  letter 
was  then  read  from  page  11  of  the  minutes  of  the  San  Francisco  201 
Water  Works: 

"To  the  President  and  Trustees  of  the  San  Francisco  City  Water 
Works.  Gentlemen : 

"The  undersigned,  owning  and  representing  the  entire  capital 
"stock  of  the  San  Francisco  City  Water  Works,  in  the  following 
"proportions,  namely,  John  Bensley,  1000  shares,  A.  W.  Von  Schmidt 
"1000  shares  and  Anthony  Chabot  1000  shares,  and  having  received 
"certificates  for  the  following  shares,  namely,  John  Bensley  600 
"shares,  A.  W.  Von  Schmidt  600  shares,  and  Anthony  Chabot  600 
"shares,  have  hereby  agreed  and  stipulated  one  with  the  other  that 
"the  balance  of  1200  shares  shall  be  placed  to  a  fund  designated  and 
"called  the  construction  fund.  You  are  therefore  hereby  ordered 
"and  empowered  to  place  the  said  1200  shares  to  the  debit  of  said 
"construction  fund  on  the  books  of  your  corporation  to  be  used 
"by  your  board  for  the  purpose  of  carrying  on  operations  and  con- 
"struction  of  the  works  of  the  corporation  as  shall  in  your  judgment 
"be  deemed  most  proper  until  otherwise  ordered." 

CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.   STEINHART.  202 

I  don't  remember  that  the  3000  shares  of  stock  issued  by  the  San 
Francisco  Water  Works  Co.  were  fully  paid.  As  I  understand  it, 
the-  shares  were  issued  to  Von  Schmidt,  Bensley  and  Chabot,  and  later 
on  they  paid  assessments  on  the  shares. 

I  received  the  data  for  the  first  item  in  column  No.  6  and  No.  7, 
being  $185,000,  from  page  7  of  exhibit  104,  which  is  a  summary  of 

55 


Sharon 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

the  actual  contribution  of  property  and  cash  by  stockholders  of  the 
San  Francisco  City  Water  Works  and  Spring  Valley  Water  Works. 
This  was  submitted  by  Mr.  Reynolds  in  the  1903  case ;  on  page  8  of 
that  same  exhibit  there  is  shown  assessment  No.  1,  J.  Bensley, 
$45,000,  assessment  No.  1,  Von  Schmidt,  $45,000,  assessment  No.  1, 
Chabot,  $45,000,  total,  $135,000.  On  March  15,  1858,  there  is  shown 
100  full  paid  shares  of  stock  to  J.  Bensley  $50,000.  The  $50,000  and 
the  $135,000  total  $185,000.  I  cannot  identify  the  record  here  as 
shown  by  Mr.  Reynolds,  as  to  the  last  entry,  as  to  whether  it  refers  to 
the  minutes  or  some  other  book — he  has  some  page  numbers,  and  it 

203  is  under  date  of  March  15,  1858.    I  don't  remember  now  that  I  did 
find  any  record  in  the  minutes  concerning  that,  but  it  is  shown 
in  Reynolds'  testimony,  page  4001.     Referring  to  the  first  assess- 
ment, I  said  that  I  put  these  totals  down  from  pages  7  and  8  of 
Mr.  Reynolds'  exhibit  104  in  the  1903-4  case.     My  recollection  is 
that  I  did  find  some  of  these  entries  in  the  minutes,  but  I  don't 
know  that  I  found  all  of  them.    My  recollection  is  that  I  found  a 
reference  to  an  assessment,  and  that  the  assessment  was  a  credit  on 
the  shares  issued  to  these  gentlemen  for  cash  and  materials  which  they 
had  supplied  to  the  San  Francisco  City  Water  Works  Co.  in  the 
construction  of  its  works.     I  read  from  the  entry  as  it  appears  on 
Reynolds'  exhibit,  but  it  might  also  refer  to  page  13  of  the  minute 
book  of  the  San  Francisco  Water  Works,  and  also  to  the  statement 
showing  the  accounts  presented,  which  appears  on  page  14.    On  page 
13,  minute  book  of  San  Francisco  City  Water  Works,  under  date 
September  27,  1858,  the  following  appears : 

204  ' '  On  motion  of  A.  Chabot  and  seconded  by  A.  W.  Von  Schmidt, 
"that  an  assessment  of  15  per  cent  shall  be  ordered  on  1800  shares, 
"or  $900,000  capital  stock  now  issued,  payable  on  or  before  the  4th 
"day  of  October  next."    I  credited  this  assessment  on  my  account 
as  paid  in  cash.     On  page  14  of  the  minutes  of  the  San  Francisco 
City  Water  Works,  under  date  September  29,  1858,  I  find  the  fol- 
lowing : 

' '  On  motion  of  A.  Chabot,  and  seconded  by  A.  W.  Von  Schmidt, 
"that  the  account  of  John  Bensley,  Esq.,  amounting  to  $40,091.34, 
"be  hereby  approved  and  allowed. 

"Motion  being  put,  received  a  unanimous  vote  in  the  affirmative. 

"The  accounts  of  A.  Chabot  were  next  presented,  amounting 
"to  $48,911.10,  which  were  also  approved  and  allowed. 

"The  accounts  of  A.  W.  Von  Schmidt  were  next  presented, 
"amounting  to  $38,069.97,  which  were  also  approved  and  allowed. 

"The  above  accounts  having  been  passed  by  an  unanimous  vote, 
"the  secretary  was  directed  to  have  the  respective  amounts  entered 
"to  the  credit  of  each  of  the  above-named  parties."  I  think  that  is 
all  the  evidence  in  the  minutes  of  the  payment  of  that  first  assess- 
ment as  I  see  no  further  references  here  by  Mr.  Reynolds  to  that. 

56 


Sharon 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

On  page  8,  the  minute  book  of  San  Francisco  City  Water  Works, 
under  date  May  25,  1858,  I  find:  "On  motion  of  A.  Chabot,  and       205 
"seconded  by  A.  W  von  Schmidt,  that  the  salaries  of  the  different 
' '  officers  of  the  company  shall  be  as  follows,  to-with : 

"The  president  shall  receive  the  sum  of  $500  per  month;  and 
"John  Bensley,  as  treasurer,  shall  receive  the  sum  of  $500  per 
"month;  and  that  the  superintendent  and  engineer  shall  each  receive 
"the  sum  of  $1000  per  month  for  their  services  from  date;  and  for 
"their  services  heretofore  rendered  from  the  6th  day  of  August, 
"1857,  up  to  date,  shall  be  at  the  rate  of  $1000  per  month  each, 
"to-wit,  John  Bensley,  A.  Chabot  and  A.  W.  Von  Schmidt,  motion 
"being  put  a  unanimous  vote  was  received  in  the  affirmative." 

The  president  at  that  time  was  Mr.  John  Bensley,  but  I  do  not 
remember  whether  Mr.  Chabot  was  an  officer  or  not,  although  he 
was  one  of  those  whose  salary  is  fixed  here.  The  only  amount  I  find 
credited  on  the  minutes  to  the  account  of  Bensley,  Chabot  and  Von 
Schmidt  is  $127,072.41  provided  those  three  items  add  up  that 
amount.  I  find  another  item  for  100  full  paid  shares  of  stock  to 
J.  Bensley  under  date  March  15,  1858,  of  $50,000.  I  don't  know  that 
it  is  in  the  minutes;  it  is  from  the  exhibit. 

The  next  item  is  $221,825,  in  column  6,  in  the  year  1859.  I 
found  that  figure  on  page  7  of  Mr.  Reynolds'  exhibit  104  and  the 
details  for  it  on  page  8  of  exhibit  104.  It  has,  under  date  here  of 
January  15,  1859,  50  full  paid  shares  of  stock  to  Perkins,  $25,000.  I 
find  on  page  18  of  the  San  Francisco  City  Water  Works  minutes, 
the  following 

"On  motion  of  Mr.  Chabot,  seconded  by  Mr.  Bensley,  it  was 
"resolved  and  carried  unanimously,  that  the  president  and  secre- 
tary of  the  company  be  authorized  and  directed  to  issue  to  A.  B. 
"Perkins  50  shares  of  the  capital  stock  of  the  San  Francisco  City 
"Water  Works,  the  same  to  be  issued  as  full  paid  stock,  and  re- 
"ceived  by  him  as  full  payment  of  his  interest  in  the  Lobos  Creek 
"ranch,  pursuant  to  contract  made  between  A.  Chabot  of  the  second 
"part,  and  John  Bensley,  A.  B.  Perkins  and  James  Gordon,  party 
"of  the  first  part,  dated  May  15,  1856,  and  in  full  satisfaction 
"thereof."  I  do  not  know  anything  about  the  value  at  that  time  of 
the  property  that  was  exchanged  for  that  50  shares  of  stock. 

The  shares  of  stock  issued  to  the  law  firm  of  Shafter,  Park  &       207 
Heydenfeldt,  is  not  included  in  the  year  1859;  it  is  not  in  the 
exhibit  at  all. 

I  don't  know  whether  the  minutes  correspond  to  these  dates  or 
not  that  are  shown  on  here,  but  the  date  as  shown  here  for  the  first 
item  after  that  $25,000  is  one  dated  January  28,  1859,  in  which  assess- 
ment No.  2  had  been  credited  to  Bensley,  Chabot,  and  Von  Schmidt, 
$7,500  each,  making  $22,500  for  that  assessment.  There  is  another 

57 


Sharon 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

assessment  June  9,  1869,  to  these  three  gentlemen  amounting  to 
$12,500.  On  June  9,  1859,  assessment  3,  Bensley,  $7,500,  Von 
Schmidt,  $7,500,  Chabot  $7,500,  total  $22,500.  October  19,  1859,  525 
shares  sold  to  Parrott,  Low  Brothers  &  Co.,  and  Birdseye  &  Co., 
$52,500;  35  shares  sold  to  Simpkins,  $3,150.  November  26,  1859, 
assessment  on  138  shares  to  Simpkins,  $12,420.  December  20,  1859, 
extra  assessment  $71,255. 

208  The  references  to  those  assessments;  on  page  19  of  the  minute 
book,  San  Francisco  City  Water  Works,  under  date  January  28,  1859, 
I  find  the  following : 

' '  On  motion  of  Mr.  Chabot,  seconded  by  Mr.  Bensley,  that  a  sec- 
"ond  assessment  be  called  on  1800  shares  of  the  capital  stock  of  the 
"San  Francisco  Water  Works,  now  issued,  and  that  said  assessment 
*lbe  21/2  per  cent  on  the  par  value  of  said  1800  shares,  viz.,  $900,000, 
"payable  on  or  before  the  31st  instant". 

On  page  29  of  the  San  Francisco  City  Water  Works  minutes,  un- 
der date  of  June  8th,  1859,  I  find  the  following : 

"Mr.  A.  Chabot  presented  a  bill  of  $6,000  for  sundry  expenses 
"and  services  rendered,  said  account  not  included  in  any  previous 
"settlement  with  said  company,  and  asked  to  have  the  same  placed  to 
"his  credit  on  the  books  of  the  company. 

A.  W.  Von  Schmidt  moved,  and  seconded  by  Mr.  Bensley,  that 
"said  amount  is  just,  and  that  it  be  ordered  paid.  Motion  put  and 
' '  carried. 

"Mr.  John  Bensley  presented  his  account  for  services  rendered 
"and  expenses  paid,  not  included  in  any  previous  settlement,  amount- 
' '  ing  to  $5,000,  and  asked  to  have  the  same  acted  upon  and  passed  to 
"his  credit.  On  motion  of  Mr.  Chabot,  and  seconded  by  A.  W.  Von 
"Schmidt  that  said  account  is  just  and  the  same  ordered  paid.  Motion 
"put  and  carried. 

"  A.  W.  Von  Schmidt  presented  his  account  for  the  sum  of  $1,500, 
' '  paid  by  Etting  Mickle  to  Van  Tyne  for  the  purchase  of  Lobos  Creek 
"ranch  and  asked  the  same  to  be  placed  to  his  credit  and  paid.  On 
"motion  of  Mr.  A.  Chabot,  and  seconded  by  Mr.  Bensley,  that  said 
"account  is  just  and  to  order  it  paid". 

209  Mr.  Reynold's  exhibit  is  entitled  "Investment  of  Stockholders, 
San  Francisco  City  Water  Works",  and  he  shows  under  these  various 
dates  these  assessments,  but  he  refers  to  the  minutes  for  his  authority, 
and  he  also  has  page  numbers  of  an  assessment  book,  a  column  headed 
"Cash  Book",  a  column  headed  "Journal",  and  a  column  headed 
"Ledger". 

210  The  next  entry  in  the  minutes  appears  at  page  35  under  date  of 
September  26,  1859,  and  is  as  follows : 

"President  Bensley  called  the  meeting  to  order.  Minutes  of  the 
"previous  meeting  read  and  approved.  The  president  stated  the  ob- 
"ject  of  the  meeting  to  be  as  follows: 

58 


Sharon 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

"That  in  consideration  of  the  sale  of  525  shares  of  the  capital 
"stock  of  the  said  San  Francisco  City  Water  Works,  being  stock  re- 
"maining  unpaid.  The  proceeds  of  which  sale  are  required  to  meet 
"payments  of  the  company  now  due,  and  for  the  purpose  of  continu- 
' '  ing  the  works.  Mr.  Chabot  moved  that  said  sale  of  the  reserved  stock 
"be  approved,  and  that  the  president  and  secretary  be  desired  to  issue 
"said  stock  to  the  respective  parties  who  have  purchased,  to- wit,  John 
"Parrott,  175  shares;  Low  Bros.  &  Co.,  175  shares;  and  Birdseye  & 
"Co.,  175  shares". 

Questioned  by  the  Master. 

The  money  amount  is  $52,500,  $100  per  share. 

CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.   STEINHART. 

I  got  the  item  8  of  the  Exhibit  104.    It  is  entered  here  under  date 
October  19,  1859,  and  that  is  the  only  point  of  information  I  have  as       211 
to  that. 

The  next  entry  is  under  date  of  October  19,  1859,  being  35  shares 
sold  Simpkins,  payment  I  think  of  $3,150,  and  which  is  from  Rey- 
nold's Exhibit  104  showing  the  investment  of  stockholders.  The  entry 
on  pages  37  and  38  of  the  minutes  of  October  18, 1859,  reads  as  follows : 

"The  president  stated  the  object  of  the  meeting  to  be,  to  take  into 
"consideration  the  issuance  of  stock  to  Charles  H.  Simpkins,  in  con- 
formity with  contract  dated  the  4th  day  of  April,  1859,  for  the  sup- 
"ply  of  pipe.  Mr.  Chabot  moved  to  issue  35  shares  for  the  present, 
"until  the  exact  amount  can  be  ascertained.  Motion  seconded.  Mo- 
' '  tion  put  and  carried  by  unanimous  vote ' '.  That  stock  was  issued  for 
pipe,  and  my  recollection  is  that  later  on  in  the  minutes  there  is  a  bill 
presented  by  Simpkins  for  pipe.  I  do  not  know  upon  what  basis  that  212 
was  settled. 

There  is  another  item  under  date  November  26,  1859,  assessment 
on  138  shares  to  Simpkins,  $12,420,  going  to  make  up  the  item  $221,- 
825.  That  is  probably  on  page  42  of  the  minutes,  the  reference  that  I 
gave  was  probably  an  error ;  I  do  not  see  anything  in  the  minutes  that 
would  indicate  that  exact  reference  of  138  shares.  Refer  to  the  item 
of  December  20,  1859,  reading  as  follows: 

"Resolved,  that  all  assessable  stock  now  issued  be  assessed  at  a 
"rate  sufficient  to  make  all  the  stock  25  per  cent  on  its  par  value. 
"Carried  unanimously".  That  resolution  probably  has  reference  to 
the  item  which  is  on  Reynold's  Exhibit  104,  under  date  of  December 
20,  1859,  assessment  extra  $71,255  for  the  year  1859,  but  I  have  not 
any  evidence  of  the  payment  of  that  assessment. 

That  is  all  that  goes  to  make  up  my  total  of  $221,825.    On  page  30       213 
there  appears  the  following  in  the  minutes  of  the  San  Francisco  City 
Water  Works:    "Mr.  Chabot  moved  that  the  stock  of  said  company       214 
"not  heretofore  issued,  and  being  placed  at  present  to  the  credit  of  the 
"construction  account,  shall  be  issued  to  each  of  the  above-named 

59 


Sharon 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

"parties,  in  proportion  of  their  accounts  as  passed  upon,  and  at  such 
"valuation  as  shall  hereafter  be  put  upon  said  stock  by  the  board  of 
' '  trustees ' '. 

I  have  50  shares  of  stock  issued  to  Bensley,  $5,000,  which  corres- 
ponds with  the  amount  of  the  account  as  presented  by  Mr.  Bensley, 
$5,000,  and  I  have  an  account  of  15  shares  of  stock  issued  to  Von 
Schmidt  on  page  8  of  Exhibit  104,  which  corresponds  with  an  account 
presented  by  Von  Schmidt  for  the  sum  of  $1,500  for  the  purchase  of  a 
portion  of  the  Lobos  Creek  ranch,  and  I  have  60  shares  of  stock  issued 
to  Chabot,  $6,000,  on  Exhibit  4,  the  $6,000  corresponding  with  the  bill 
presented  by  Mr.  Chabot  for  expenses  and  services  rendered. 

215  DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  OLNEY. 

So  far  as  my  account  goes,  I  entered  up  the  stock  issued  in  the 
same  amount  as  the  bills  presented  by  these  various  men. 

CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.   STEINHART. 

The  next  item  1860,  $281,685,  was  made  up  of  two  items,  a  con- 
tribution by  the  stockholders  of  the  San  Francisco  City  Water  Works, 
amounting  to  $125,175,  and  by  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Works  for 
the  remainder.  On  page  7  of  Reynold's  Exhibit  104  he  has  the  con- 
tribution by  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Works  in  1860  at  $442,500,  and 
at  the  end  of  this  tabulation  he  shows  a  credit  repaid  to  stockholders 
$210,000.  That  repayment  was  in  the  purchasing  from  the  stockhold- 
ers the  full  paid  shares  issued  in  1860,  so  that  in  making  up  the  tabu- 
lation, as  it  appears  in  column  6,  for  1860,  I  entered  up  the  amount 
actually  credited  to  the  stock  in  1863  rather  than  the  full  amount  as 
Mr.  Reynolds  showed  in  1860.  In  this  exhibit  of  Reynolds,  on  page  3, 
in  the  column  headed  "Record  Book",  there  are  several  references, 
and  possibly  those  references  are  to  the  minutes,  pages  31  and  32.  The 
amount  credited  to  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Works  was  $256,500  of 
the  amount  that  enters  into  the  $281,675.  Up  to  the  present  time  I 
find  no  reference  in  the  minutes  showing  the  payment  or  the  credit  of 

216  that  amount. 

The  following  is  read  from  page  6  of  the  minutes  of  the  Spring 
Valley  Water  Works,  minute  book  "A",  being  a  portion  of  Article  2 
of  The  Articles  of  Incorporation  of  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Works : 
"The  property  and  works  of  said  company  shall  be  held  and  deemed 
of  the  value  of  $60,000,  represented  by  capital  stock  to  that  amount, 
divided  into  300  shares  of  $200  each,  and  each  share  shall  entitle  the 
holder  thereof  to  the  undivided  one-three  hundredth  part  of  said  prop- 
erty and  works  and  the  profits  and  proceeds  thereof". 

The  date  of  the  articles  of  incorporation  are  June  19,  1858.  With 
regard  to  the  remainder  of  the  amount  going  to  make  up  the  figure 
of  $281,675,  page  11  of  Exhibit  104  under  date  of  August  20,  1860, 
shows  200  full  paid  shares,  issued  to  Ensign,  $200,000,  October  18, 

60 


Sharon 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

1860,  200  full  paid  shares,  issued  to  Pioche,  De  Boom,  Cobb,  et  al, 
$200,000.  The  shares  were  for  $1,000  each,  and  I  took  the  $550,  which 
was  the  difference  between  the  $450  and  the  $1,000  in  the  first  instance ; 
the  shares  were  bought  back  in  1863  and  I  made  the  correction  in  the 
first  year  rather  than  in  1863.  To  describe  that  operation  a  little  more  217 
fully,  the  shares  were  issued  in  1860  and  were  full  paid  non-assessable. 
They  ran  along  until  1863,  when  they  were  bought  back  by  the  Spring 
Valley  Water  Works  from  the  holders  on  the  basis  of  $450  per  share. 
There  was  then  issued  to  the  holders  new  shares,  assessable,  on  which 
there  was  a  credit  allowed  of  $280,  being  the  amount  of  the  assessment 
on  the  stock  up  to  that  time.  There  was  also  issued  to  the  holders, 
bonds  to  the  amount  of  $69,000  and  cash ;  the  cash,  as  I  remember  it, 
was  about  $68,000.  This  I  got' from  Mr.  Reynolds'  testimony,  so  that 
the  value  then  in  1863  of  the  stock  as  issued  in  1860  was  the  value  that 
I  attach  to  it  as  of  1860  rather  than  the  $1,000  value  as  shown  by  Rey- 
nolds on  pages  7  and  11  of  his  exhibit  because  he  makes  a  credit  at  the 
end,  at  the  time  of  the  consolidation  of  the  companies,  for  that  differ- 
ence. I  have  a  list  here  which  shows  the  disposition  of  $69,500  of 
bonds,  which  list  Major  Dockweiler  had,  and  is  entitled  "Excerpt  from  218 
Spring  Valley's  book  marked  Stock  Issued".  That  shows  the  dispo- 
sition and  the  parties  who  received  the  $69,000  worth  of  bonds,  and  so 
far  as  any  of  the  stockholders  who  received  those  bonds  were  con- 
cerned, I  credited  that  to  them  under  the  term  "Stockholders",  with- 
out particular  reference  to  any  names,  and  my  payment  of  cash  I  got 
from  Reynolds'  testimony.  I  consider  that  the  value  was  not  the  full 
paid  shares,  but  the  value  as  of  1863.  The  stock  was  issued  by  the 
company  to  these  people,  Pioche,  De  Boom  and  Ensign,  for  property 
and  rights  from  which  the  company  got  its  supplies;  out  in  Islais 
Creek  was  one  place,  and  also,  I  think,  a  holding  in  Crystal  Springs. 

Page  31  of  minute  book  "A"  Spring  Valley  Water  Works,  under 
date  of  May  18,  1860,  shows  that  the  capital  stock  of  the  Spring  Val- 
ley Water  Works  Co.  be  increased  from  $60,000  to  $3,000,000,  namely, 
3,000  shares  of  $1,000,  and  that  the  necessary  notice  be  published  in 
the  "Evening  Telegram"  and  "Daily  Times",  two  newspapers  printed  219 
in  the  City  and  County  of  San  Francisco.  On  page  31  there  appears 
the  following  statement: 

"The  president  stated  that  in  pursuance  of  an  agreement  made 
"with  A.  W.  Von  Schmidt  as  to  the  terms  and  conditions  upon  which 
"new  stockholders  are  to  be  permitted  into  this  company  are  sub- 
"stantially  as  follows,  to-wit:  That  the  president  of  said  Spring  Val- 
"ley  Water  Works,  George  H.  Ensign,  in  consideration  of  $300,000 
"worth  of  property  by  him  assigned,  transferred  and  delivered  to  said 
"company  shall  receive  $2,000  cash  in  hand  and  10  percent,  of  all  the 
"capital  stock  of  the  said  company,  whatever  the  amount  of  capital 
"stock  may  be,  not  to  exceed  $300,000,  of  non-assessable  stock,  and 
"shall  be  the  owner  of  one-tenth  of  all  the  stock  of  said  company  to 

61 


SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

"be  issued  and  delivered  to  him  as  preferred  full  paid  or  unassessable 
"stock". 

That  was  issued  to  him  as  full  paid  stock.  It  is  so  recorded  by 
Mr.  Reynolds.  On  page  78  minute  book  "A",  Spring  Valley  "Water 
Works,  under  date  October  20,  1860,  I  find  the  following : 

"Resolved,  that  the  president  and  secretary  be  authorized  to  sign 
"the  certificates  of  stock  in  conformity  with  the  by-laws  of  the  com- 
' '  pany  and  to  issue  the  same  forthwith  to  the  respective  holders  of  the 
' '  assessable  stock ;  also  to  George  H.  Ensign  100  of  the  200  shares  full 
"paid  stock  to  be  paid  him  in  conformity  with  contract,  and  that  that 
"200  shares  unassessable  stock  to  be  paid  to  F.  L.  A.  Pioche  and  others 
"composing  the  late  Islais  and  Salinas  Water  Works  Company  pur- 

220  "suant  to  the  contract  to  that  effect  dated  the  14th  day  of  August, 
"1860,  be  issued  as  soon  as  the  attorney  of  this  company  shall  have 
"reported  that  the  said  Islais  and  Salinas  Water  Works  Company 
"have  disincorporated  according  to  law". 

That  all  relates  to  item,  1860,  that  I  have  charged  up  as  of  the 
value  given  upon  the  purchase  or  exchange  in  1863,  and  the  remainder 
of  that  item  I  got  from  Exhibit  104  page  11  whereon  under  date  Sep- 
tember 1,  1860,  there  is  shown  assessment  No.  1,  collected  $21,250, 
and  on  December  1,  1860,  there  is  shown  assessment  2,  collected  $21,- 
250.  The  reference  in  the  minutes  to  those,  may  be  on  page  51.  Page 
51  minute  book  "A",  Spring  Valley  Water  Works,  under  date  of 
August  15,  1860,  produces  the  following: 

"Mr.  Tillinghast  proposed  an  assessment  to  meet  current  and 
"coming  outlays  and  suggested  $7.00  as  about  the  sum  requisite;  after 
"mature  deliberation  it  was  unanimously  decided  to  call  in  an  in- 
"stallment  of  $10  per  share  on  all  assessable  stock,  payable  within  ten 
"days  from  this  15th  August,  1860".  I  have  no  evidence  that  that 
was  collected,  only  as  stated  here  in  Reynolds'  Exhibit  104.  That 
makes  up  the  complete  item  as  given  in  1860. 

221  The  next  item  for  the  year  1861,  $237,075,  is  made  up  of  two  items 
taken  from  pages  7,  8  and  11  of  Reynolds'  Exhibit  104;  San  Fran- 
cisco Water  Works  $36,575,  and  Spring  Valley  Water  Works  $218,500. 
The  item  $36,575  I  find  on  page  8,  under  date  July  12,  1861,  in  Ex- 
hibit No.  104,  assessment  No.  4,  of  15  per  cent  less  dividend  credited 
on  above,  and  I  also  found  reference  to  it  in  the  minutes  on  page  77 
of  the  San  Francisco  City  Water  Works.    The  amount  credited  on  this 
assessment,  $213,750  less  earnings,  $177,175,  leaving  $36,575. 

On  page  77  of  the  minutes  of  the  San  Francisco  City  Water  Works 
appears : 

"Resolved,  that  an  assessment  be  levied  on  the  assessable  stock  of 
"the  company,  of  15%,  said  assessable  stock  amounting  to  2,850  shares, 
"representing  $1,425,000.  Resolved,  that  no  call  be  made  on  the  stock- 
' '  holders  but  that  the  said  assessment  be  paid  out  of  the  surplus  profits 
' '  of  the  company  which  have  been  expended  in  the  construction  of  the 

62 


Sharon 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

"work".    That,  and  the  statement  shown,  are  the  only  knowledge  that 

I  have  of  that  item  from  the  records  of  the  company.  222 

I  have  the  following  items:  On  page  11  of  Reynolds'  Exhibit 
104,  there  is  shown  under  date  February  1,  1861,  assessment  No.  3, 
collected  $20,750.  On  February  9,  1861,  25  full  paid  shares,  issued  to 
Parsons,  Pioche,  for  Lake  Honda,  $25,000.  On  April  1,  1861,  assess- 
ment No.  4,  collected  $20,750.  On  April  9,  1861,  ten  full  paid  shares 
issued  to  "Wilkins  for  San  Gregorio,  $10,000.  On  June  1,  1861,  assess- 
ment No.  5,  collected  $20,750.  On  June  6,  1861,  sold  100  shares  of 
stock,  less  paid  out,  $5,000.  That  item  shows  two  figures,  $6,000  and 
$1,000  under  it,  leaving  a  net  amount  out  in  the  column,  of  $5,000. 
The  item  reads  as  follows :  June  6,  1861,  sold  100  shares  of  stock,  less 
paid  out.  Then  there  are  two  figures,  $6,000  and  underneath  that 
$1,000,  and  out  in  the  column  is  shown  $5,000,  that  being  the  invest- 
ment or  contribution.  On  June  8,  1861,  assessments  1,  2,  3,  4  and  5, 
on  25  shares  of  stock,  $1,250.  On  July  23,  1861,  5  full  paid  shares, 
issued  McMahan,  Pilarcitos,  $5,000.  August  1,  1861,  assessment  No. 
6,  collected  $22,000.  September  1,  1861,  assessment  No.  7,  collected 
$22,000.  October  1,  1861,  assessment  No.  8,  collected  $22,000.  Novem- 
ber 1,  1861,  assessment  No.  9,  collected  $22,000.  December  1,  1861, 
assessment  No.  10,  collected  $22,000. 

I  made  a  correction  there  also  for  the  purchase  for  the  full  paid  223 
shares  that  are  shown  on  this  list  that  I  have  just  read,  and  entered 
in  this  column  in  this  exhibit  "Plaintiff's  Exhibit  12-bb",  only  the 
value  in  1863  under  the  date  1861.  I  gave  the  credit  then  of  the  value 
of  the  stock  in  1863  in  the  year  1861— in  this  case.  Under  date  of 
February  9,  1861,  25  full  paid  shares,  issued  to  Parsons  and  Pioche, 
for  Lake  Honda,  $25,000.  I  included  in  1861  $11,250  as  a  contribution 
to  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Works,  being  a  payment  for  property  at 
Lake  Honda.  That  was  the  issue  of  25  shares  fully  paid  for  property 
at  Lake  Honda,  and  may  be  found  on  page  94  of  the  minute  book.  On 
page  94  of  minute  book  "A",  Spring  Valley  Water  Works,  February 
15,  1861,  I  find  the  following :  224 

"The  action  of  the  president  in  issue  of  certificates  for  the  25  full 
"paid  shares  representing  $25,000  stock  of  the  company  in  payment 
' '  of  the  purchase  money  of  Lake  Honda  and  property  thereto  attached 
"was  unanimously  approved". 

Page  104  of  minute  book  "A"  of  Spring  Valley  Water  Works, 
shows  the  following: 

"Resolved,  that  the  president  be  fully  empowered  to  conclude 
"purchase  of  certain  water  rights  offered  by  Henry  Wilkins  for  the 
"use  of  the  company  to  the  following  named  streams  in  the  County  of 
"San  Mateo.  Arroyo  de  San  Gregorio;  Arroyo  Honda  or  Tunitas 
"Creek,  and  the  Corte  Madera  Creek  and  all  the  sources  of  the  same, 
"etc.,  together  with  the  right  of  way  through  the  lands  known  as  the 
"San  Gregorio  Rancho,  all  as  fully  specified  in  the  deeds  of  convey- 

63 


Sharon 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

"ance,  and  that  after  examination  and  approval  of  title  deeds  by  Mr. 
"  S.  W.  Holiday,  attorney  of  the  company,  the  president  be  authorized 
"to  issue  in  payment  of  said  water  rights,  etc.,  full  paid  stock  of  the 
"company  to  the  amount  of  $10,000,  or  say  a  certificate  or  certificates 
"for  the  aggregate  number  of  ten  fully  paid  stock".  These  sources  of 
supply  have  not  been  used. 

Page  110,  minute  book  "A"  Spring  Valley  Water  Works,  of 

225  date  June  4,  1861,  contains  the  following: 

"Stock  sold.  Sale  of  100  shares  of  stock  of  the  company  stand- 
ing on  the  books  to  account  reserve  stock,  sold  at  $60  with  $50  paid 
"in,  corresponding  to  the  first,  second,  third,  fourth  and  fifth  install- 
"ments,  sold  to  the  following  parties: 

' '  50  shares  to  Louis  McLean,  Jr. 
"10  shares  to  Samuel  Knight. 
' '  20  shares  to  Henry  A.  Fox. 
"20  shares  to  Henry  Hudson. 

"Sale  approved  and  president  authorized  to  issue  the  stock  in 
"conformity".     The  number  of  shares  outstanding  would  be  2,200 
"shares,  the  assessment  having  been  $10  a  share,  and  netted  $22,000". 
Questioned  by  Mr.  McCutchen. 

I  got  the  figures  of  the  amount  from  the  minutes,  and  I  also 
have  the  amount  from  Reynolds'  exhibit  104,  and  I  have  a  pencil 
note  of  2200  shares  on  the  margin. 

CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.   STEINHART. 

These  sales  of  stock  that  I  have  referred  to  were  of  the  Spring 
Valley  Water  Works,  as  also  were  assessments  Nos.  3  to  10,  which  I 
have  already  detailed. 

On  page  7  of  minute  book  "B",  appears  the  following: 

226  "Stock  to  Owen  and  Patrick  McMahan  for  water  rights;  the 
"issuance  of  5  shares   of  full  paid  stock  to   Owen   and  Patrick 
"McMahan  in  payment  of  water  rights  on  Pilarcitos  Creek  as  per 
"resolution  of  this  board  14th  ultimo,  approved."    That  I  credited 
on  the  basis  of  the  exchange  in  1863,  as  it  was  full  paid  stock. 

On  page  30,  minute  book  "B",  Spring  Valley  Water  Works, 
April  8,  1862,  reserve  stock.  "On  motion  of  Mr.  Johnson,  seconded 
"by  Mr.  Roxby,  resolved  that  the  president  be  authorized  to  sell 
"any  number  of  shares,  not  to  exceed  300,  of  the  stock  standing  on 
"the  books  of  the  company  to  account  reserved  stock  for  contingent 
"purposes  at  prices  not  less  than  $10  per  share  advance  over  and 
"above  the  amount  paid  in;  unanimously  adopted." 

Page  48,  minute  book  "B",  Spring  Valley  Water  Works,  under 
date  of  June  21,  1862,  presents  the  following: 

"Resolved  that  the  board  of  trustees  of  the  Spring  Valley 
"Water  Works  be  requested  to  sell,  issue  and  dispose  of  for  cash 
"at  the  highest  price  they  can  obtain  for  the  same  all  of  the  re- 

64 


Sharon 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

"maining  shares  of  the  capital  stock  of  said  company  yet  remaining 
"unissued  and  undisposed  of. 

"W.  F.  Farwell,  substitute:  W.  B.  Farwell  offered  the  follow- 
ing as  substitute: 

"Resolved  that  the  board  of  trustees  be  instructed  to  divide 
"the  shares  of  stock  now  on  hand  pro  rata  among  the  assessable 
"stockholders  of  the  company,  and  to  cause  the  same  to  be  issued 
"without  delay  and  that  the  same  shall  be  assessed  from  the  time 
"of  issuance  as  other  assessable  stock.  After  debate  the  substitute  227 
"being  duly  seconded  was  adopted  by  the  following  vote,  the  ayes 
"and  noes  having  been  called  for".  Minute  book  "B",  page  61, 
September  26,  1862:  "The  following  resolution  was  offered  by  Mr. 
Carlton  and  seconded  by  Mr.  Woodworth: 

"Resolved  that  the  president  be  authorized  to  negotiate  for  the 
"purchase  of  the  full  paid  stock  of  the  company  at  prices  not  to 
"exceed  $350  per  share.  Resolution  adopted  unanimously." 

Page  70,  minute  book  "B",  under  date  of  April  1,  1863,  present 
the  following : 

"The  President  submitted  to  the  board  the  terms  of  a  proposed 
"agreement  with  certain  holders  of  full  paid  stock  for  the  redemp- 
"tion  of  certificates  outstanding  under  said  denomination  and  the 
"following  resolution  was  offered  by  Mr.  Woodworth  and  seconded 
"by  Mr.  Carlton: 

"Resolved  that  the  outstanding  certificates  of  stock  issued  by 
"this  company  under  the  denomination  of  full  paid  be  redeemed  and 
"the  terms  stated  in  the  proposal  above  referred  to,  namely,  the 
"sum  of  $450  per  share,  to  be  paid  partly  in  assessable  stock  with 
"$280  credited  thereon  as  paid  assessment,  partly  in  cash  and  partly  ^28 
"in  bonds  of  the  company  payable  in  five  years  and  bearing  one 
"percent,  per  month  interest,  payable  quarterly,  according  to  the 
"separate  terms  stipulated  respectively  by  the  several  owners  of 
"such  full  paid  stock.  Adopted  unanimously;  subject  to  the  ratifi- 
" cation  of  majority  of  the  stockholders  to  be  called  together  for  the 
"purpose  on  Monday  the  13th  inst.,  at  2  P.  M.  by  notification  of  the 
"secretary  in  the  form  prescribed  by  the  bylaws." 

I  have  the  amount  of  these  different  assessments  per  share,  from 
page  3  to  page  11  a  statement  concerning  the  assessment  number  and 
the  amount  collected  for  the  year  1861.  I  have  the  amount  for 
assessment  No.  4  of  April  1,  1861.  That  is  $10  a  share.  I  have  the 
amounts  of  assessment  5,  $20,750,  which  would  be  $10  a  share.  Nos.  229 
6,  7,  8,  9  and  10  are  each  $22,000,  and  I  have  a  note  here  as  to  $10 
a  share,  which  I  took  from  the  minutes.  Assessment  No.  11  is  entered 
on  exhibit  No.  104,  page  11,  under  date  January  1,  1862,  in  the 
amount  of  $22,000.  The  dates  for  1862  are  as  follows,  in  addition  to 
the  one  I  have  just  read  as  of  January  1,  1862 :  February  1,  1862, 

65 


Sharon 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

assessment  No.  12,  collected  $24,000.  The  total  figures  that  I  give, 
and  which  I  have  set  out  in  column  6,  are  taken  from  the  Reynolds 
exhibit,  with  the  modification  that  I  have  explained  about  the  full 
paid  stock.  The  next  one  was  assessment  No.  14  of  April  1,  1862,  at 

230  $20.     The  next  one,  April  26,  1862,  15  full  paid  shares,  issued  to 
Mezes,  for  Pilarcitos,  $15,000.     The  next  assessment  is  May  1,  1862 ; 
June  1,  1862;  July  1,  1862;  August  1,  1862;  August  11,  1862;  that 
is  a  special  here ;  $3,000  is  all  that  I  have.     Assessment  No.  19, 
September  1,  1862,  the  shares  must  have  been  increased  then,  be- 
cause the  amount  is  increased  to  $12,725.     I  mean  it  has  increased 
solely  in  proportion  to  the  $10  as  shown  previously,  and  my  evidence 
as  to  that  is  taken  solely  from  the  Reynolds  testimony.    Assessment 
19  is  $5.00  a  share.     I  stated  that  the  amount  here  had  increased, 
so  the  number  of  shares  had  increased.    Up  to  this  time  we  had  been 
talking  about  2200  shares.     Now  the  number  of  shares  have  in- 

231  creased.    Assessment  20,  of  $25,450,  was  paid  October  1,  1862,  $10  a 
share.      Assessment    21    for    $10    is    of    date    November  1,   1862. 
Assessment  22,  date  December  1,  1862,  is  $15  a  share,  minutes  page 
62.    Assessment  23,  minutes  page  63,  is  of  date  January  1,  1863,  $15 
a  share.    Assessment  24,  February  1,  1863,  $15  a  share.    Assessment 
25,  minutes  page  67,  is  of  date  April  25,  1863,  $10  a  share.    Assess- 
ment 26,  dated  December  15,  1863,  minutes  page  93,  $15  a  share. 

232  These  check  out  assessments  that  were  paid  in  1863. 

There  are  no  items  that  I  have  computed  in  the  amount  $281,675 
for  1860  other  than  those  to  which  I  have  testified.     The  item  of 

1861,  $237,075,  is  made  up  from  the  figures  taken  from  pages  7,  8 
and  11  of  exhibit  104,  showing  contributions  in  1861  to  the  San 
Francisco  City  Water  Works  $36,575,   and  to  the   Spring  Valley 
Water  Works  in  1861,  of  $218,500,  and  that  reference,  I  think,  is 
page  77  of  the  minutes  of  the  San  Francisco  City  Water  Works.    I 
did  not  include  this  in  the  item  in  I860;  that  was  in  1861,  and 
$218,500  is  the  contribution  in  that  year  by  the  Spring  Valley  Water 
Works,  and  the  $36,575  was  the  contribution  in  1861  to  the  San 
Francisco  City  Water  Works.     In  1862  on  pages  7,  8  and  11  of 
exhibit  104,  there  is  shown  under  the  San  Francisco  City  Water 
Works  a  contribution  of  $141,625,  and  for  1862  the  contribution  of 
the  Spring  Valley  Water  Works  is  shown  as  $404,375. 

233  My  figures  do  not  check  there,  by  the  difference  between  the 
full  paid  shares  and  the  credit  which  I  allow  for  those  full  paid 
shares  which  were  issued  in  1862,  and  which  we  have  just  read.   The 
same  computations  extend  to  the  year  1862  as  to  the  years  previously 
where  the  issuance  of  the  full  paid  stock  entered  into  the  totals  as 
I  have  given  them  to  you.    The  item  of  $141,625,  San  Francisco  City 
Water  Works,  I  got  on  exhibit  104,  page  8,  under  date  April  15, 

1862,  assessment  No.  5,  $71,250,  and  under  date  June  15,  1862,  assess- 
ment No.  6,  $70,375 ;  those  two  items  aggregate  $141,625. 

66 


Sharon 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

On  page  91,  minutes  of  the  San  Francisco  City  Water  Works, 
under  March  13,  1862,  the  following  appears: 

"On  motion  of  Mr.  Bensley,  it  was  unanimously  resolved  that 
"an  assessment  of  5%  on  the  capital  stock  of  the  company  be  and 
"is  hereby  levied.  Payable  on  or  before  the  15th  day  of  April  next, 
"the  same  being  assessment  No.  5."  I  have  no  knowledge  as  to 
the  payment  of  that,  except  the  entry  as  shown  by  Reynolds  in  ex- 
hibit 104,  as  a  contribution  by  stockholders. 

On  page  95  of  the  minutes  of  the  San  Francisco  City  Water 
Works,  under  date  of  May  12,  1862,  the  following  appears :  234 

"On  motion  of  Mr.  Sneath  an  assessment  of  5  percent  on  the 
"assessable  capital  stock  of  the  company,  payable  on  or  before  the 
"14th  day  of  June  next,  be  and  is  hereby  levied,  said  assessment 
"being  No.  6;  voted  unanimously."  I  have  no  evidence  of  knowl- 
edge from  the  minutes  of  the  company,  or  from  the  books  of  the 
company  as  to  the  payment  of  that  amount. 

FIFTH  HEARING.  JULY  19,  1915. 

Witness  MR.  JOHN  JOSEPH  SHARON. 

CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  SEARLS. 

The  payments  for  year  1863  were  based  upon  figures  which  I       235 
obtained  from  Mr.  Reynolds'  exhibit  104,  on  page  7,  of  which  is 
shown  $84,450  for  the  San  Francisco  City  Water  Works,  and  $140,515 
for  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Works.     These  represent  assessments 
23,  24,  25  and  26. 

Questioned  by  Master. 

These  were  assessments  for  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Works, 
whereas  the  San  Francisco  City  Water  Works  appear  on  Page  7  of 
assessment  No.  8,  $84,450.  23g 

I  know  only  in  a  general  way  that  this  assessment  money  was 
put  into  the  construction  of  works  of  the  San  Francisco  City  Water 
Works,  and  also  into  property.  This  property  consisted  of  property 
out  at  Lobos  Creek.  From  Lobos  Creek  the  water  was  taken  by 
conduit  along  the  shore  of  the  Golden  Gate  and  delivered  to  a  pump- 
ing station  at  the  foot  of  Van  Ness  Avenue,  about  where  the  present 
Black  Point  pumping  station  of  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Co.  is 
located,  and  from  that  station  the  water  was  pumped  to  two  reser- 
voirs, one  the  Francisco  Street  Reservoir,  and  the  other  the  Lom- 
bard Street  Reservoir.  From  these  reservoirs  pipe  was  laid  in  the 
city  distribution  system,  and  water  was  sold  through  those  pipes  to 
consumers. 

CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  SEARLS. 

Q.  Do  you  find  anything  in  these  records  showing  whether  the 
San  Francisco  City  Water  Works  or  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Works 
were  at  that  time  competing  companies? 

67 


Sharon 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

A.  I  think  that  that  was  mentioned  in  the  minutes,  and  I  also 
had  some  notice  of  that  also  from  the  daily  newspapers  of  the  time. 

237  When  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Works  took  over  the  San  Fran- 
cisco City  Water  Works,  I  do  not  think  that  there  was  any  duplica- 
tion of  plant,  as  where  there  was  duplication  of  plant,  I  find  from 
Mr.  Wenzelberger's  exhibit  that  the  duplicated  pipes  were  all  sold 
to  the  San  Francisco  Gas  Company,  and  I  think  there  was  not  very 
much  in  the  way  of  duplication,  as  the  San  Francisco  City  Water 
Works  were  supplying  the  north-eastern  portion  of  the  town,  while 
the  Spring  Valley  Water  Works  was  supplying  out  in  the  Mission, 
and  in  the  Western  Addition,  and  that  where  the  duplication  did 
exist  was  about  at  the  limits  of  the  San  Francisco  City  Water  Works 
and  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Works. 

On  page  39  of  minute  book  "B",  Spring  Valley  Water  Works, 
under  date  May  6,  1862,  I  find  the  following : 

"The  president  reported  that  the  indenture  made  the  4th  of 
"April,  1862,  between  Francois  L.  A.  Pioche,  Soledad  Ortega  de  Ar- 
"guello,  Jose  Ramon  Arguello  and  S.  M.  Mezes  and  this  company 
"had  been  duly  executed  and  placed  on  record  in  the  Recorder's 
"office,  Redwood  City,  San  Mateo  County,  said  indenture  conveys 
"to  this  company  certain  land  and  water  rights  on  the  Domingo 
"Feliz  Ranch  in  San  Mateo  County,  etc.  Document  ordered  on  file 
"and  the  president  authorized  to  issue,  in  conformity  with  the  terms 
"of  agreement  the  fifteen  full  paid  shares  of  the  stock  of  the  com- 
"pany  standing  on  the  books  as  reserved  stock." 

238  I  accounted  for  that  stock  as  of  April  26,  1862,  being  15  full 
paid  shares  issued  to  Mezes.     We  are  now  talking  about  the  year 
1863,  and  the  figures  that  I  gave  were  for  1863,  as  I  understood  you 
to  say  1863.    Referring  to  these  assessments,  of  which  I  have  just 
spoken,  I  have  compared  the  amount  of  the  various  levys  with  the 
minutes  in  each  case,  and  it  is  my  impression  now  that  the  figures 
that  are  shown  on  "Exhibit  104"  compare  with  those  that  are  shown 
in  the  minutes. 

239  The  following  dates   of  assessment  levys  was  read  into   the 
records,  with  the  understanding  that  it  could  be  checked  later; 
Assessment  No.  24,  December  12,  1862,  $15  per  share;  Assessment 
No.  25,  February  24,  1863,  $10  per  share ;  Assessment  No.  26,  Octo- 

240  ber  31,  1863,  $15  per  share;  (the  next  assessment  will  show  as  paid 
during  1864)  Assessment  No.  27,  December  4,  1863,  $15  per  share; 
Assessment  No.  28,  January  6,  1864,  $15  per  share.    Assessment  of 
January  15,  1864,  of  $90  per  share,  to  pay  up  all  the  company's 
indebtedness  is  not  given  a  number  in  the  minutes,  but  is  subse- 
quently recognized  as  Assessment  No.  29;  Assessment  No.  30,  July 
11, 1864,  $10  per  share;  Assessment  No.  31,  September  1,  1864,  $25  per 
share;  Assessment  No.  32,  November  4,  1864,  $10  per  share;  Assess- 
ment 33,  January  11,  1865,  $30  per  share. 

68 


Sharon 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

The  contribution  as  shown  on  page  7  of  Reynolds'  exhibit  104 
for  the  San  Francisco  City  Water  Works  in  1864,  is  shown  as 
$95,631.45 ;  Spring  Valley  Works  for  1864  is  shown  as  $450,945.  I 
have  no  number  for  the  assessments  of  the  San  Francisco  City  Water 
Works,  but  for  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Works,  the  assessments  for 
1864  are  27,  28,  29,  30,  31  and  32. 

Question  by  the  Master. 

The  figures  for  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Works  is  made  up  of 
these  assessments;  I  do  not  see  in  Mr.  Reynolds'  exhibit,  any  num- 
ber for  the  assessment  corresponding  to  the  $95,631.45  for  the  San 
Francisco  City  Water  Works. 

CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  SEARLS. 

I  cannot  identify  that  payment  from  the  Reynolds  exhibit  104. 

The  following  was  read  from  page  118  of  the  minutes  of  the       241 
San  Francisco  City  Water  Works,  being  under  date  of  February 
8,  1864: 

' '  On  motion  of  Mr.  Low,  seconded  by  Mr.  Thomas,  resolved  that 
"an  assessment  of  6  percent  on  the  capital  stock  be  and  is  hereby 
''levied,  payable  by  the  stockholders  on  or  before  the  15th  day  of 
"March,  1864,  in  gold  coin  of  the  United  States.  Carried  unani- 
"mously." 

Mr.  Reynolds'  exhibit  shows  just  the  year  1864  on  this  table 
from  which  I  was  reading,  and  he  has  a  lot  of  details  on  the  pre- 
ceding pages  1  and  2,  exhibit  104,  in  which  are  shown  references  to 
record  books,  assessment  books,  cash  book  and  ledger,  and  other 
books  of  the  company,  and  giving  the  page  numbers,  so  I  don't  know 
whether  that  corresponds  with  the  data  he  has  for  1864  or  not. 
There  is  nothing  to  show  whether  that  was  the  amount  received  from 
that  assessment  or  not,  unless  it  is  shown  in  the  minutes,  and  I  do 
not  remember  whether  it  is. 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  MCCUTCHEN. 

I  mean  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  minutes  so  far  as  I  am  now 
advised,  but  I  will  say  that  there  is  nothing  on  this  exhibit  104  to 
show  that.  It  does  show  that  there  was  that  amount  contributed 
by  the  stockholders  of  the  San  Francisco  City  Water  Works  in  the 
year  1864,  but  it  is  not  tied  up  with  any  assessment  number,  so  I 
cannot  identify  it  in  that  respect. 

Questioned  by  Master. 

Assessment  No.  8,  6%,  amounted  to  $84,450,  and  back  assess-       242 
ment  collected  under  date  of  August  1,  1864,  was  $11,181.45. 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  MCCUTCHEN. 

In  view  of  that  discovery  I  would  like  to  correct  the  answer  to 
-conform  with  the  data  that  I  see  here  on  page  9,  exhibit  104,  show- 

69 


Sharon 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

ing  the  two  items  aggregating  $95,000  odd  that  I  read  there.  That 
assessment  No.  8,  is  under  date  of  April  1,  1864,  and  the  back  assess- 
ment collected  is  under  date  August  1,  1864. 

CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  SEARLS. 

On  page  125  of  the  minutes  of  the  San  Francisco  City  Water 
Works,  annual  meeting  on  May  25,  1864,  appears  the  following  reso- 
lution : 

''Resolved  that  a  stock  dividend  of  one-third  or  33  1-3%  be 
"made  to  each  stockholder,  and  certificates  for  the  same  be  issued 
"to  the  stockholders  as  they  stand  on  the  books  of  the  company  on 
"the  20th  day  of  June,  and  that  no  dividend  shall  at  any  time  be 
"declared  on  any  fractional  share  of  stock." 

The  only  consideration  for  that  stock  that  I  entered  in  my  paid 

243  column  was  the  amount  of  assessment,  and  if  there  was  no  assess- 
ment, it  is  not  shown.    That  was  a  dividend.    The  dividends  that  are 
shown  in  column  15  of  "exhibit  12-bb"  are  taken  from  Reynolds' 
exhibit  104,  on  page  10;  there  is  shown  the  dividends  paid  by  the 
San  Francisco  City  Water  Works,  beginning  with  July  1,  1864,  the 
last  dividend  is  shown  as  dividend  No.  7,  March  1,  1865.    There  is  no 
notation  of  a  stock  dividend  stated  on  the  exhibit.     The  consolida- 
tion between  the  San  Francisco  City  Water  Works,  and  the  Spring 
Valley  Water  Works  took  place  in  1865,  and  the  capital  stock  is 
shown  as  $6,000,000  on  the  exhibit. 

244  Questioned  by  Master. 

Exhibit  104  does  not  show  the  $6,000,000  of  that  year  as  par 
or  face  value,  but  it  is  referred  to  on  pages  144,  145  to  150  of  the 
record  book. 

CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  SEARLS. 

On  page  148  of  minute  book  "B",  December  28,  1864,  it  appears 
that  the  capital  be  formed  of  $6,000,000  in  6000  shares  of  $1,000 
each,  of  which  capital  3200  shares  shall  be  awarded  to  the  San  Fran- 
cisco City  Water  Works,  and  2800  shares  to  the  Spring  Valley  Water 
Works,  the  stockholders  of  each  to  be  entitled  to  a  distributive 
share  pro  rata. 

Taking  up  the  paid  column  for  1865,  that  amount  is  shown  on 
page  7  of  exhibit  104  to  March  1,  1865,  $100,459.51,  and  on  page  14 
is  shown  under  date  March  6,  1865,  cash  from  James  Ludlow  for 
10  shares,  $5,000,  making  a  total  of  $105,000. 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  MCCUTCHEN. 

Exhibit  104  is  an  exhibit  as  filed  by  Mr.  Reynolds  in  the  1903 
rate  case. 

245  There  is  only  one  number  for  the  assessment  upon  which  the 
1865  payments  were  based.     The  other  was  a  purchase  of  stock. 
Page  12  of  exhibit  104  shows  under  date  March  1,  1865,  assessment 

70 


SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

No.  33,  collected  $83,700,  and  under  date  January  11,  1865,  received 
from  the  estate  of  Doon,  back  assessment,  $16,759.51.  On  page  14 
is  shown,  March  6,  1865,  cash  from  James  Ludlow  for  ten  shares, 
$5,000.  The  next  entry  is  1868,  showing  20,000  shares— $2,000,000. 
Page  14  of  exhibit  104  shows  April  20,  1868,  20,000  shares  sold,  on 
which  was  collected  at  this  date  $400,000.  On  August  1,  1868,  20,000 
shares  were  sold,  on  which  was  collected  at  this  date  $400,000. 
Those  are  dittoed  in  the  exhibit  here,  so  it  does  not  mean  an  addi- 
tional 20,000  shares,  but  20,000  shares  for  the  entire  year.  On  Octo- 
ber 1,  1868,  collected  to  this  date  $360,000,  making  a  total  of 
$1,160,000. 

Questioned  by  Master. 

The  reference  to  the  minutes  there  is  page  278  to  page  302. 

CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  SEARLS. 

Resolution  appearing  on  page  283  of  minutes  "B"  Spring  Valley 
Water  Works,  under  date  March  18,  1868,  is  as  follows: 

''Resolved  that  if  the  stock  be  increased  then  the  directors  be 
"requested  to  issue  the  new  stock  to  the  stockholders  pro-rata  upon 
"the  stock  held  at  the  rate  of  $58  per  share." 

Page  284  of  the  minutes  of  March  20,  1868,  shows  the  following       246" 
resolution : 

"On  motion  of  Mr.  Babcock,  seconded  by  Mr.  Walker,  resolved: 
"that  the  payment  to  be  made  on  the  new  stock  shall  be  made  in 
"the  following  manner,  $20  on  or  before  20th  of  April,  interest  on 
"payment  to  commence  May  1st;  $20  payable  on  or  before  August 
"1st,  and  $18  payable  30  days  after  notice  by  publication.  Scrip  to 
"be  issued  for  the  payments  so  made." 

I  multiplied  the  amount  of  stock  issued  by  $58  a  share,  the  sum  at 
which  it  was  sold,  and  received  the  total  $1,160,000,  which  total  was 
also  shown  in  exhibit  104.  It  is  stated  in  the  minutes  that  there 
was  a  resolution  to  increase  the  capital  stock  to  $18,000,000,  which 
was  subsequently  amended  to  $16,000,000,  as  shown  on  page  48 
of  minute  book  "C".  That  seems  to  be  an  error  for  1883;  it  should 
be  1884.  On  page  18  of  exhibit  104  it  shows,  under  date  of  Novem- 
ber 15,  1884,  sales  10,000  shares,  and  collected  $860,000,  which  is  at 
$86.  Minute  book  "C",  page  374,  as  of  date  April  1,  1884,  shows 
the  following  resolution :  247 

' '  On  motion  of  Mr.  Fry,  seconded  by  Captain  Eldridge,  it  was  re- 
"  solved  that  the  president  and  secretary  of  this  company  be  and  they 
"are  hereby  authorized  to  issue  and  sell  20,000  shares  of  the  unissued 
"stock  of  this  corporation  at  $87.50  per  share;  and  they  are  hereby 
"instructed  to  cause  notice  to  be  given  by  publication  in  the  'San 
"Francisco  Chronicle'  and  the  'Evening  Bulletin'  to  the  effect  that 
"upon  application  at  the  office  of  the  company  on  or  before  the  30th 
"April  the  stockholders  will  be  entitled  to  purchase  one  share  of 

71 


SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

"stock  for  every  four  shares  which  they  now  own,  upon  paying  there- 
"for  in  cash  the  said  $87.50  per  share." 

By  resolution  of  date  September  26,  on  page  433  of  the  minutes, 
the  price  was  reduced  to  $86  per  share,  as  follows : 

' '  Resolved  that  the  price  of  said  stock  be  and  the  same  is  hereby 
"fixed  at  the  sum  of  $86  per  share,  that  being  in  the  judgment  and 
"opinion  of  this  board  as  near  the  present  market  value  of  the  stock 
"of  the  corporation  as  the  same  can  be  fixed,  having  regard  to  uni- 
' '  f  ormity . ' ' 

Page  439  of  the  minutes  of  November  3,  1884,  shows  the  follow- 
ing resolution: 

"On  motion  of  Mr.  Goodman,  seconded  by  Colonel  Fry,  resolved 
"that  the  finance  committee — (Mr.  Bigelow  and  Mr.  Mayne)  be  au- 
thorized to  negotiate  for  the  sale  of  the  remaining  unsold  stock 
"which  was  authorized  to  be  sold  by  resolution  of  the  board  Septem- 
ber 26,  1884,  namely,  15,966  shares  (4034  shares  having  been  sold) 
"at  a  price  not  less  than  $86  per  share.  Carried. 

248  Page  444,  minutes  of  December  8,  1884,  shows  the  following 
resolution : 

"On  motion  of  Colonel  Fry,  seconded  by  Mr.  Beaver,  resolved 
"that  the  sale  by  the  committee  of  4458  shares  of  Spring  Valley 
"Water  Works  stock  to  Sutro  &  Company  at  $86  per  share,  payable 
"at  the  company  needs  money,  and  when  the  stock  is  issued,  inter- 
"est  to  be  charged  from  the  1st  day  of  each  month  up  to  the  time  of 
"issue  at  6  percent  per  annum,  and  with  the  understanding  that  the 
"further  issues  of  the  company's  stock  shall  be  made  before  the  1st 
"day  of  July,  1885,  and  said  4458  shares  of  stock  are  to  be  issued  as 
"payments  are  made  in  not  less  than  500  share  lots  be  ratified  by 
"the  board.  Carried  unanimously." 

I  should  not  say  that  the  minutes  would  indicate  that  the  entire 
10,000  shares  were  sold  during  1884.  Mr.  Reynolds  shows  that  the 
10,000  shares  were  sold  and  collected. 

(Mr.  Searls  then  advised  the  Master  that  the  sum  of  these  was 
about  8900  shares  out  of  10,000,  and  that  these  minutes  are  as  of 
December  8,  and  as  the  witness  has  just  said,  authorized  the  sale  of 
4,458  shares  to  Sutro  &  Company,  and  that  he  could  find  nothing 

249  else  in  the  minutes).    There  was  some  stock  sold  in  1885,  and  it  may 
be  that  the  last  resolution  under  date  of  December  8,  1884,  had  refer- 
ence to  the  sale  of  some  of  that  stock.     I  have  already  noted  the 
correction  for  the  year  1884  on  the  exhibit.    Exhibit  104,  under  date 
December  31,  1885,  shows  10,000  shares  sold  and  $953,521  collected. 
The  following  resolution  appears  on  page  496  of  minutes  "C"  under 
date  of  November  23,  1885 : 

"On  motion  of  Mr.  Goodman,  duly  seconded  it  was  resolved 
"that  the  president  and  secretary  of  this  corporation  are  authorized 
"and  instructed  to  issue  and  sell  10,000  shares  of  the  capital  stock 


Sharon 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

"of  this  company  at  $95  per  share,  and  they  are  hereby  instructed 
"to  cause  notice  to  be  given  by  publication  in  the  daily  papers  that 
"upon  application  at  the  office  of  the  company  on  or  before  the  31st 
"of  December  the  stockholders  of  record  on  the  1st  of  December  will 
"be  entitled  to  one  share  of  stock  for  every  nine  shares  which  they 
"own  on  that  date,  upon  payment  therefor  the  sum  of  $95  per  share, 
"with  interest  at  the  rate  of  6%  per  annum  from  the  1st  of  December 
"to  date  of  payment." 

That  is  slightly  in  excess  of  $95  per  share,  and  the  interest  would 
probably  take  care  of  the  difference,  as  it  is  a  small  amount,  $3,000. 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  MCCUTCHEN. 

The  date  of  that  is  November  23,  1885.    The  interest  was  to  be       250 
calculated  from  December  1st,  and  my  record  shows  the  date  of 
payment  to  be  made  December  31,  1885. 

Questioned  by  Master. 

The  rate  of  interest  was  6  per  cent. 

CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  SEARLS. 

The  next  sale  that  appears  from  exhibit  104,  page  18,  under  date 
May  9,  1891,  shows  10,000  shares  and  collected  $931,723.75.  The  fol- 
lowing was  read  from  page  411  of  minute  book  "D",  under  date  of 
March  26,  1891 : 

"On  motion  of  Mr.  Borel,  seconded  by  Mr.  King,  it  was  resolved 
"that  this  corporation  will  sell  10,000  shares  (in  bulk  or  in  lots)  of 
"its  increased  capital  stock  for  the  purpose  of  paying  on  account  of 
"its  current  indebtedness  other  than  bonds,  and  that  the  secretary 
"is  hereby  directed  to  advertise  for  bids  for  the  purchase  thereof, 
"but  subject  to  the  condition  that  all  such  bids  shall  be  reported 
"to  this  board  and  be  subject  to  its  approval  or  rejection;  and  that 
"if  approved  (or  as  to  such  as  may  be  approved)  the  president  and 
"secretary  upon  receiving  payment  are  authorized  to  issue  and  sell 
' '  such  shares.  Carried. ' ' 

Page  419  of  minute  book  "D",  under  date  of  April  25,  1891,       251 
shows  the  following  resolution: 

"On  motion  of  Mr.  Beaver,  seconded  by  Mr.  Bigelow,  it  was 
"resolved  that  all  bids  for  the  new  issue  of  stock  made  today  for  the 
"price  of  $93  per  share  and  upwards  be  accepted  and  bids  made  at  a 
"lower  price  than  $93  be  rejected  and  that  the  secretary  be  author- 
ized to  receive  applications  for  stock  which  shall  be  considered  at 
"the  next  regular  meeting.  On  motion  adjourned." 

-  On  page  491,  being  minutes  of  May  7, 1891,  appears  the  following 
resolution : 

' '  On  motion  of  Mr.  King,  duly  seconded,  resolved  that  the  stock 
"remaining  unsold  of  the  issue  of  May  5,  1891,  being  485  shares,  be 

73 


Sharon 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

"awarded  100  shares  at  $94.50  per  share  to  Allen  McLane  and  385 
"shares  at  $94.50  per  share  to  J.  C.  &  E.  Coleman." 

(Mr.  Searls  stated  to  the  Master  that  he  had  made  calculations 
based  on  the  reports  in  the  minutes  for  the  year  1891,  and  that  said 
reports  show  that  under  resolution  of  April  25th,  page  419,  that  at 
least  $116,529  should  have  been  realized,  and  from  the  resolution 
read  on  page  421,  of  May  7th,  $45,782  should  have  been  realized, 
making  a  total  of  approximately  $162,000.) 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  MCCUTCHEN. 

The  amount  received  in  fact,  according  to  this  statement,  was 

252  $931,723.75.     I  don't  know  that  I  checked  this  from  Mr.  Wenzel- 
berger's  testimony,  in  fact  I  don't  know  that  his  testimony  or  that 
his  exhibit  shows  that.    His  exhibit  covers  mostly  construction  ac- 
counts, and  I  do  not  remember  now  that  he  sets  forth  any  place  in 
his  exhibit  the  receipt  from  sale  of  stocks  or  bonds. 

On  page  20,  Exhibit  104,  under  date  November  1,  1893,  appears 
sold  10,000  shares  and  collected  $656,848.29,  which  is  the  basis  for  my 
receipts  in  that  year. 

Page  44  of  minute  book  "E",  of  date  November  1,  1893,  shows 
the  following  resolution : 

"The  bids  for  the  purchase  of  stock  7,000  shares  under  adver- 
tisement of  October  19,  were  opened.  On  motion,  duly  seconded,  it 
"was  resolved  that  all  bids  of  $93  and  upwards  be  accepted  and  that 
"the  secretary  be  instructed  to  advertise  in  the  daily  papers  for  new 
"bids  for  the  2025  shares  not  allotted  under  this  resolution.  Bids  re- 
"ceived  in  accordance  with  advertisement  to  be  opened  at  the  com- 
"pany's  office  at  11  a.  m.  on  Monday  the  6th  inst". 

253  The  total  number  of  shares,  as  appearing  under  the  advertise- 
ment of  October  19,  4,975,  and  the  average  price  figuring  a  little  over 
93  is  correct,  assuming  this  addition  to  be  correct. 

On  page  46,  minute  book  "E",  November  6,  1893,  appears: 
"The  bids  for  2025  shares  of  stock  advertised  in  November  1, 
"were  opened.  On  motion,  duly  seconded,  it  was  resolved  that  S.  P. 
"Drexler  and  C.  H.  Kaufman  be  allotted  92y2  shares  of  stock  each 
"at  95  1/12  per  share  and  that  all  of  the  bids  received  which  were  over 
"95^  amounting  to  1840  shares  be  accepted".  There  were  2,025 
shares  sold  at  95%  approximately.  The  previous  price  being  slightly 
in  excess  of  93  for~7,000  shares.  This  last  will  make  about  $193,000, 
which,  added  to  the  amount  previously  received,  would  give  a  $200  dif- 
ference. Mr.  McCutchen  just  called  my  attention  to  the  fact  that 
there  is  a  statement  on  Exhibit  104  showing  10,000  shares  sold,  and 
collected  $656,848.29,  which  should  read  7,000  shares  if  that  amount 
checks  with  the  figures  that  you  have.  That  price  would  bring  up  the 
total. 

74 


SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

The  figure  $596,478  in  the  year  1895  is  shown  on  page  20  of  Ex-       254 
hibit  104  under  date  September  11,  1895,  sold  6,000  shares  and  col- 
lected $596,477.70. 

Page  168  of  minute  book  "E",  September  6,  1895: 

"The  president  stated  that  the  object  of  the  meeting  was  to  open 
' '  all  bids  made  for  the  6,000  shares  of  stock  advertised  for  sale  by  the 
"company.  The  trustees  awarded  to  the  following  bidders  the  6,000 
"shares  of  stock  as  being  the  best  bids  that  was  made  for  the  same". 
There  follows  an  award  of  the  entire  6,000  at  a  figure  slightly  in  ex- 
cess of  99. 

The  allotment  for  1896  I  have  shown  as  page  20,  Exhibit  104, 
under  date  of  September  8,  1896,  5,000  shares  sold  and  collected  $486,- 
600.12.  On  page  244,  minute  book  "E",  there  was  an  allotment  of  25 
shares  at  99  on  June  1,  1896,  and  on  page  280  an  allotment  of  4,975  255 
shares  at  $97.  There  are  some  few  shares  here  sold  at  $96.  Taking 
these  last  two  allotments,  the  price  is  a  little  in  excess  of  $97,  and 
against  that  figure  Reynolds  has,  in  Exhibit  104,  the  sum  of  $486,000. 

On  page  20,  of  Exhibit  104,  under  date  September  8,  1897,  ap- 
pears sold  5,000  shares  and  collected  $497,500.  That  checks  exactly 
with  the  allotment  made  on  page  352  of  the  minute  book  "  E  ",  of  date 
September  2,  1897. 

For  the  year  1898  I  have,  on  page  20,  Exhibit  104,  sold  7,000 
shares  and  collected  $693,000.  I  find  on  page  397  of  minute  book  "  E  " 
of  February  10,  1898,  that  they  sold  the  7,000  shares  at  $99  per  share, 
and  the  remaining  item  in  1906  was  the  assessment  levied  subsequent 
to  the  fire.  The  basis  for  that  figure  was  280,000  shares  of  capital 
stock  at  $3  per  share. 

The  minutes  of  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Works,  as  they  appear  256 
from  minute  book  "B",  page  366,  of  May  16,  1870,  show  that  the 
bonds  were  being  sold  on  that  date  at  1%  and  1%  premium,  and  that 
those  bonds  which  were  dated  April  1,  1870,  term  10  years,  bore  in- 
terest at  9  per  cent,  payable  semi-annually.  They  are  known  as  third 
series  bonds. 

The  reason  for  the  computation  of  interest  for  six  months  at  an 
assumed  fair  rate  as  shown  in  columns  10  and  11,  was  that  the  rate  of 
interest  used  was  the  rate  as  shown  in  column  18,  headed  "Assumed 
fair  cost  of  money  without  profit,  Metcalf ".  In  the  computations  that 
I  made  for  the  interest,  I  assumed  that  the  money  would  be  in  opera- 
tion about  a  half  year;  that  is,  the  entire  amount  would  be  in  use  for  257 
that  time,  and  so  I  took  that  rate  as  shown  in  column  18,  and  applied 
it  to  the  actual  contribution  at  a  six  months  rate.  It  was  not  my  idea . 
that  the  money  invested  would  not  begin  to  earn  apy  return  until  at 
least  six  months  had  expired,  but  I  meant  by  that  that  the  stockholders 
had  contributed  through  the  year  a  certain  amount  of  money,  as  shown 
in  columns  3  and  6,  and  that  in  addition  to  the  actual  contribution, 

75 


SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

they  also  had  contributed  the  loss  in  interest  on  that  money  during 
that  year,  which  would  correspond  in  a  measure  to  interest  during 
construction.  I  assumed  that  the  money  was  in  use  from  the  moment 
that  it  was  put  into  the  system ;  the  stockholders  though  were  not  get- 
ting any  return  on  it  supposedly  until  toward  the  end  of  the  year,  at 
which  time  they  had  to  actually  invest  it — the  money  shown  in  column 
3  and  6 — and  in  addition  to  that,  had  lost  the  interest  on  that  amount 
for  a  period  of  about  six  months.  The  loss  of  interest  was  due  to  the 
fact  that  they  had  paid  it  into  the  company  and  had  not  earned  the 
interest  they  otherwise  would  earn  if  it  had  been  in  a  bank,  or  in  a 
corporation  that  was  actually  paying.  It  would  correspond  to  inter- 

258  est  during  construction. 

The  figures  as  to  coupon  interest  and  dividends,  columns  14  and 
15,  I  derived  mostly  from  Mr.  Wenzelberger 's  Exhibit  101,  showing 
the  coupon  interest  in  the  earlier  years  that  had  been  charged  to  new 
construction.  I  do  not  remember  the  year,  but  there  was  a  change 
made,  and  the  coupon  interest  is  shown  in  the  profit  and  loss  and  in- 
come account.  Those  were  taken  from  Wenzelberger 's  exhibit  of  the 
year  1904,  and  from  the  company's  records  since  that  time.  My  rec- 
ollection is  that  I  checked  Mr.  Wenzelberger 's  exhibit  with  Mr.  Rey- 
nolds', and  they  both  checked.  My  recollection  also  is  that  I  checked 
them  as  to  the  dividend  columns  with  the  minutes,  and  found  that  it 
compared  with  the  figures  as  shown  by  Mr.  Reynolds  and  Wenzel- 
berger. 

Referring  to  column  18,  the  assumed  fair  cost  of  money  was  en- 
tirely computed  by  Mr.  Metcalf,  and  constitutes  his  opinion,  and  is 
not  based  upon  any  opinion  of  mine. 

I  have  not  the  details  with  me  showing  how  I  arrived  at  the  figure 
6.93  per  cent  as  the  actual  cost  of  the  money  at  the  time  of  sale  of  the 
gold  notes  bearing  5%  per  cent  interest,  as  shown  in  the  bond  column, 
year  1913,  but  it  was  arrived  at  by  taking  the  expense  incurred  in 
issuing  the  notes,  and  dividing  the  actual  amount  of  money  received 

259  by  the  company.    It  may  possibly  be  that  there  is  an  error  there ;  I  will 
look  up  those  figures. 

Objection  made  to  the  introduction  of  "Exhibit  12-bb" 
upon  the  ground  that  the  evidence  is  immaterial,  irrelevant  and  incom- 
petent, and  not  the  best  evidence  and  mere  hearsay.  This  objection 
is  made  subject  to  any  future  stipulation,  if  any  such  is  made,  be- 
tween counsel  as  to  the  propriety  of  admitting  the  Reynold's  exhibit. 
259-260  Mr.  McCutchen  here  stated  that  every  effort  had  been  made  to  lo- 

cate Mr.  Reynolds  through  every  possible  channel,  and  that  no  one 
seems  to  know  his  whereabouts.  "I  take  it  that  if  Mr.  Reynolds  is 
actually  alive,  and  is  living  out  of  this  jurisdiction,  we  would  be  en- 
titled to  use  his  testimony.  I  would  like  to  know  from  you  whether 
you  desire  us  to  put  that  information  in  the  form  of  an  affidavit,  and 
whether  you  will  also  require  us  to  have  a  subpo3na  issued  and  placed 

76 


Sharon 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

in  the  hands  of  the  Marshal  and  returned.     I  am  satisfied  that  Mr. 
Keynolds  cannot  be  found". 

Mr.  Searls  then  stated  that  there  was  no  intention  on  the  part  of 
counsel  for  the  City  to  put  counsel  for  the  complainant  to  any  unnec- 
essary trouble  in  this  matter,  but  that  outside  any  question  of  law  he 
felt  that  they  should  properly  insist  upon  some  information  as  to  why 
Mr.  Keynolds  cannot  be  produced.  Ruling  was  suspended. 

The  paper  following  the  one  which  has  been  marked  "Exhibit 
12-bb"  is  an  exhibit  identical  with  "12-bb"  up  to  and  including 
column  18,  with  the  addition  of  columns  19,  20,  21,  22,  23  and  24.  I  261 
mean  up  to  and  including  column  18,  the  remaining  and  additional 
columns  19  to  24  have  the  heading  "Including  allowance  for  defici- 
ency in  return".  In  detail,  column  19  is  intended  to  show  the  amount 
on  the  capital  sum  in  column  13  at  the  "Assumed  fair  cost  of  money 
without  profit,  Metcalf",  as  shown  in  column  18.  Column  20  gives 
the  excess  in  the  actual  return  over  that  which  was  assumed  as  a  fair 
return  in  column  19.  Column  20  gives  the  deficiency  in  the  actual 
return  as  measured  by  the  assumed  fair  amount  of  return  in  column 
19.  Column  22  gives  cumulative  deficiency,  being  the  sum  of  the  fig- 
ures shown  in  columns  20  and  21.  The  capital  sum  cumulative  is 
shown  in  column  13,  plus  cumulative  deficiency  in  column  22.  Col- 
umn 24  shows  the  actual  rate  per  cent  return  upon  capital  sum,  and 
is  the  result  of  dividing  column  16  by  column  23.  I  have  established 
from  time  to  time  a  new  principal  and  upon  that  have  calculated  in- 
terest at  the  assumed  fair  rate  of  return,  and  have  in  all  cases  charged 
the  investment  with  the  amount  of  dividend  and  coupon  interest.  The 
cumulative  sum  shown  in  column  23  for  the  year  1914,  is  $40,192,201.  262 

Column  24  is  intended  to  show  the  actual  per  cent  returned  upon 
the  capital  sum  in  column  23  divided  into  the  actual  return  as  shown 
in  column  16,  column  16  being  the  actual  coupon  interest  paid  the 
company  plus  the  actual  dividend  paid  by  the  company,  and  in  this 
column  is  shown  the  rate  of  return  which  the  aggregate  of  the  coupon 
interest  paid,  and  the  dividends  paid  is  upon  the  new  principal  estab- 
lished from  time  to  time. 

This  table  is  based  upon  Mr.  Metcalf 's  opinion  as  to  fair  return, 
and  I  would  like  to  say  in  connection  therewith  that  the  same  errors 
will  appear  in  this  new  table  as  have  been  shown  to  appear  in  the  pre- 
vious exhibit,  and  it  will  have  to  be  modified  in  accordance  with  the 
modifications  on  the  sheet  marked  "Exhibit  12-bb".  My  preparation 
of  this  table  was  solely  one  of  computation. 

(Marked  for  identification  "Exhibit  12-cc",  and  its  admission       263 
objected  to  upon  the  same  grounds  as  were  made  against  exhibit  marked 
for  identification  "Exhibit  12-bb".     It  was  decided  not  to  offer  it  in 
evidence  -until   some    understanding   could   be    arrived   at    between 
counsel.) 

77 


SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 
DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  MCCUTCHEN. 

Mr.  Metcalf  in  making  up  that  column  of  "Assumed  fair  cost 
of  money  without  profit",  considered  interest  rates  and  also  the  inter- 
est of  savings  banks. 

This  table  was  gotten  up  by  Mr.  Metcalf  almost  entirely  inde- 
pendently. I  was  with  him  part  of  the  time,  and  furnished  him  some 

264  data,  but  his  final  analysis  was  made  when  I  was  not  with  him. 

CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  SEARLS. 

265  Referring  to  "Exhibit  1";  the  scale  is  shown  in  the  lower  left- 
hand  corner,  the  horizontal  scale  is  1  inch  equals  1  mile;  the  vertical 
scale  is  1  inch  equals  2600  feet.     In  a  general  way  this  model  shows 
the  ravines  to  the  same  extent  as  the  topographical  map  ' '  Exhibit  No. 
2",  except  for  the  fact  that  where  the  contours  are  close  together,  the 
material  used  in  that  model  is  welded  together,  so  that  you  do  not  see 
all  the  details  as  clearly  as  you  would  in  the  contour  map  shown  on 
"Exhibit  2".    The  water  shed  area  of  Lake  Merced  is  not  shown  on 
this  exhibit.     The  water  that  supplies  Lake  Merced  comes  from  the 
water  shed  surrounding  the  lake,  and  that  water  shed  area  is  shown 
on  "Exhibit  12-h"  as  7.61  square  miles.    The  water  for  Lake  Merced 
comes  from  springs  in  the  lake  itself,  but  the  springs  are  supplied 
from  the  water  that  falls  on  the  watershed. 

A  large  part  of  the  watershed  has  considerable  sand  on  the  sur- 
face, and  a  strata  of  hardpan  underneath  that  surface  of  sand.  I  do 
not  remember  now  what  other  geological  formations  are  there.  I  think 
the  drainage  system  built  around  Lake  Merced  goes  down  to  hardpan 
in  the  Colma  Gulch,  but  as  to  the  rest  of  the  drainage  system,  I  think 

266  it  simply  intercepts  surface  flow. 

The  area  tributary  to  the  lake  is  7.61  square  miles,  and  it  is  partly 
occupied  in  the  southern  end  of  San  Francisco  County,  and  the  nor- 
therly end  of  San  Mateo  County  by  people  in  the  towns  known  as 
Ocean  View,  Daly  City,  and  smaller  places  further  down,  for  in- 
stance Vista  Grande.  The  portion  which  is  occupied  in  both  counties 
lies  east  of  the  Junipero  Serra  Boulevard. 

There  is  a  ravine  which  goes  down  to  the  ocean  north  of  the  Lake 
Merced  Reservoir,  and  which  carries  the  drainage  from  the  territory 
north  of  Sloat  Boulevard,  but  as  to  the  area  that  the  company  owns, 
there  are  no  buildings  thereon  to  any  extent.  There  are  gardeners 
there  who  raise  potatoes  and  cabbages  and  vegetables  of  that  kind,  but 
I  do  not  know  what  area  is  actually  leased  to  these  parties  for  agri- 

267  cultural    purposes.      Mr.    Roeding,    Superintendent   of   Agriculture, 
could  give  that  information. 

The  water  gets  into  the  lake  through  percolation  into  these  springs. 
This  is  possible  as  the  hardpan  may  be  broken.  I  do  not  know'  just 
what  the  geological  formation  is.  Underneath  that  hardpan  there  may 

78 


Sharon 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

be  still  other  porous  materials  through  which  the  water  would  flow. 
I  think  all  that  underground  percolation  would  come  from  all  the 
drainage  area  both  inside  and  outside  of  the  company's  holdings,  and 
I  think  it  could  come  from  Ocean  View  and  the  heights  there  above 
Ingleside.  I  do  not  remember  of  any  surface  streams  running  into  the 
lake,  as  it  has  been  the  policy  of  the  company  to  divert  the  surface 
water  outside  of  the  property  through  the  drainage  works  into  the 
Pacific  Ocean,  in  order  to  prevent  polution  of  the  water  of  Lake  Mer- 
ced. I  do  not  know  how  far  vertically  the  filtration  of  such  surface 
water,  that  falls  on  the  watershed  goes  before  it  reaches  this  hardpan, 
except  from  the  hearsay  evidence  of  persons  who  have  made  excava- 
tions there.  I  believe  the  hardpan  in  places  is  from  15  to  25  and  30 
feet  below  the  surface  of  the  ground. 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  MCCUTCHEN.  268 

I  think  it  is  not  of  uniform  depth. 

CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  SEARLS. 

Apparently  that  depth  is  sufficient  to  properly  filter  the  surface 
drainage,  as  is  also  the  character  of  the  soil  through  which  the  water 
would  percolate,  as  that  water  is  good  potable  water,  and  we  use  it 
a  good  deal. 

Certain  corrections  were  suggested  by  counsel,  on  page  15,  tenth  269 
line  from  the  bottom,  change  "place"  to  "pipe";  page  18  on  first  line 
next  to  last  word  on  that  line,  change  "Mission"  to  "Bay";  on  page 
24,  sixth  line,  change  "San  Antonio"  to  Arroyo  Honda";  on  page  24, 
sixth  line  from  bottom,  change  the  figures  "168"  to  "165";  on  page 
36,  fifth  line  from  the  top  of  the  page,  change  "San  Antonio"  to 
"Arroyo  Valle";  page  77,  eleventh  line  from  the  bottom,  after  the 
word  "Contents",  insert  "for  each  foot";  page  101,  about  the  middle 
of  the  page,  in  a  question  by  Mr.  Olney,  change  "Steinhart"  to 
"Sharon". 

CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.   STEINHART. 

Q.     Mr.  Sharon,  on  page  221,  I  asked  you  the  question,  "That       270 
' '  is  the  only  knowledge  you  have  of  that  item  ? 
"A.     That  and  the  statement  shown". 

The  statement  shown  you  was  the  Reynolds'  statement,  was  it 
not? 

A.  I  think  it  had  reference  also  to  the  statement  shown  in  the 
minutes,  as  I  recall  it. 

-  Q.     But  I  mean  outside  of  that,  the  only  other  statement  was  the 
Reynolds'  statement?    A.    Yes. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Sharon,  I  questioned  you  also  as  to  the  assessments 
being  assessments  as  the  same  appear  on  page  222  of  the  record,  being 

79 


Sharon 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

assessments  Nos.  1,  2,  3,  4,  5,  6,  7,  8,  9,  10  and  so  forth.  I,  myself, 
made  the  statement,  I  notice,  and  you  did  not  answer  on  the  record, 
that  all  that  the  minutes  show  was  a  levy  of  assessment  of  $5  or  $15, 
or  whatever  the  amount  might  be  per  share,  and  the  total  you  gave 
was  the  total  taken  from  Reynolds'  estimate.  That  is  correct,  is  it 
not? 

(Mr.  McCutchen  here  stated  to  Mr.  Steinhart  what  had  taken 
place  at  the  morning  session  regarding  the  presentation  with  refer- 

271  ence  to  Mr.  Reynolds,  with  the  purpose  in  view  that  his  suggestion 
might  possibly  postpone  any  further  examination  of  Mr.  Sharon  on 
this  subject.     He  also  asked  that  Mr.  Steinhart  advise  as  to  what  he 
desired  counsel  for  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Co.  to  do,  that  is  to  say, 
whether  counsel  for  the  City  wished  the  Water  Co.  to  make  a  formal 
showing  of  these  facts,  or  if  they  would  accept  that  showing  as  suf- 
ficient.   He  asked  the  following  question :    ' '  Do  you  desire  us  to  put 
in  the  form  of  an  affidavit  the  facts  which  I  have  stated  to  the  Court, 
and  do  you  desire  us  to  have  a  subpo3na  issued  and  placed  in  the  hands 
of  the  Marshal"?     Counsel  for  the  City  advised  would  give  an  ab- 
solutely definite  answer  tomorrow  morning.) 

Referring  to  ' '  Exhibit  2 " ;  the  Overacker  Tract  is  shown  about 
three-quarters  of  the  distance  between  Niles  and  Centerville,  and  is 
shown  on  map  19  and  known  as  parcels  A  269  and  B  269  on  Exhibit  8. 

272  The  Beard  Tract  is  shown  on  Exhibit  2  in  pink  west  of  the  Town 
of  Niles,  and  on  Exhibit  8,  page  19,  comprises  the  following  parcels : 

1,  J,  K,  L,  M,  268.    This  tract  is  at  present  being  subdivided  and  sold. 

The  Stone  Tract  is  the  large  tract  colored  pink  just  west  of  the 
Town  of  Sunol.  It  is  shown  on  Exhibit  8,  page  12,  as  H,  239. 

The  Poorman  property  is  west  of  the  Beard  property  on  Exhibit 

2,  near  the  east  shore  of  the  Bay  of  San  Francisco,  in  Alameda  County, 
and  is  shown  on  map  19  as  parcel  259.    It  is  the  red  tract  over  the 
word  "Potrero". 

The  West  Union  property  are  parcels  of  long  strips  running  from 
the  creek  at  the  south  end  of  upper  Crystal  Springs  Reservoir,  and 
from  there  practically  up  to  the  top  of  the  ridge  between  the  Crystal 
Springs  Reservoir  and  the  Pacific  Ocean. 

Questioned  by  the  Master. 

They  are  west  of  the  Crystal  Springs. 

CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.   STEINHART. 

Certain  portions  of  them  are  outside  of  the  Crystal  Springs 
watershed. 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  MCCUTCHEN. 

They  are  southwest  of  Crystal  Springs,  and  are  shown  on  map  5 
as  part  of  parcel  194,  195,  205,  211,  210  and  part  of  208,  on  Exhibit  8. 

80 


Sharon 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.   STEINHART.  273 

The  Searsville  property  is  in  San  Mateo  County;  it  surrounds 
the  Searsville  Lake,  and  is  near  the  Town  of  Woodside. 

(Discussion  between  counsel  as  to  whether  that  property  is  re- 
ferred to  in  any  of  the  bills  of  complaint.) 

Searsville  properties  are  all  shown  on  map  6  in  Exhibit  8. 

The  Ravenswood  property  is  in  San  Mateo  County,  on  the  west 
shore  of  the  Bay  of  San  Francisco,  and  is  about  where  the  submarine 
pipes  cross  the  Bay  of  San  Francisco.  The  Ravenswood  lands  are  in 
San  Mateo  County  only,  and  north  of  San  Francisquito  Creek.  The 
properties  around  the  south  edge  of  the  bay  in  Santa  Clara  County 
are  known  as  the  Alviso  Lands,  and  are  contiguous  with  the  Ravens- 
wood  property.  Taken  together  they  constitute  the  portion  around  the 
southerly  end  of  San  Francisco  Bay,  as  shown  on  Exhibit  2.  The 
Ravenswood  lands  are  shown  on  map  7,  Exhibit  8,  as  parcels  157,  154, 
201,  156,  213  and  155.  The  Alviso  lands  are  shown  on  maps  21  and  274 
22  in  Exhibit  8.  No  waters  have  been  taken  from  the  Searsville,  Al- 
viso, or  Ravenswood  lands  in  supplying  San  Francisco. 

The  Nusbaumer  Tract  is  shown  in  pink  between  the  Towns  of 
Sunol  and  Pleasanton,  and  lies  west  of  the  Pleasanton  30-inch  pipe 
line  as  shown  on  Exhibit  2.  It  is  shown  in  Exhibit  8,  map  12,  as  parcel 
290. 

The  Polhemus  Tract  is  shown  a  little  south  of  San  Mateo  Creek, 
and  east  of  the  ridge  forming  the  watershed  line  in  the  Crystal  Springs 
Reservoir,  Crystal  Springs  drainage  area.  It  is  to  the  east  of  this 
Crystal  Springs  drainage  area,  and  is  shown  on  Exhibit  8,  map  8,  as 
parcel  204. 

The  Chinese  Cemetery  lots  are  not  shown  on  Exhibit  2,  but  they 
are  a  little  north  of  the  Town  of  Baden,  and  opposite  Holy  Cross 
Cemetery.  These  lots  were  formerly  on  the  line  of  the  Pilarcitos  pipe 
line.  They  are  shown  on  map  8  in  Exhibit  8,  as  parcels  135,  136,  137. 

The  Pescadero  lands  are  shown  at  the  southwesterly  corner  of       275 
Exhibit  2 ;  there  are  two  tracts,  one  of  640  acres,  and  the  other  of  40 
acres.     They  have  not  been  used  in  distributing  and  supplying  water 
to  San  Francisco.    They  appear  on  map  9  of  Exhibit  8,  as  parcels  75, 
76  and  190. 

Stevens  Creek  is  shown  down  near  the  lower  margin  of  Exhibit 
2,  a  little  southwest  of  the  City  of  San  Jose.  The  Stevens  Creek  prop- 
erty is  shown  on  map  20  in  Exhibit  8,  as  parcel  326. 

The  Coyote  properties  are  not  shown  on  Exhibit  2.  They  are  in 
the  drainage  area  of  the  Coyote  River,  and  are  located  a  few  miles 
east  of  the  Town  of  Gilroy.  They  are  shown  on  Exhibit  8,  page  20, 
by  parcels  B  348  and  A  348.  It  takes  up  practically  the  entire  half 
of  that  page,  excepting  parcels  342  and  326. 

81 


Sharon 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

The  Tequesquito  properties  are  not  shown  in  Exhibit  2.  They 
are  located  on  the  Pajaro  River  south  of  the  Town  of  Gilroy,  between 
Santa  Clara  and  San  Benito  Counties,  and  are  shown  on  map  20,  par- 
cel 342,  Exhibit  8. 

276  The  San  Francisquito  properties,  as  shown  on  Exhibit  2,  are  those 
shown  in  yellow,  between  the  Searsville  Lake  and  the  Bay  of  San  Fran- 
cisco; they  are  riparian  rights,  but  have  not  at  any  time  been  used 
in  supplying  water  to  San  Francisco.    The  yellow  boundaries  mark 
the  boundaries  of  the  separate  parcels  of  land  from  which  the  com- 
pany obtained  riparian  rights.    The  San  Francisquito  riparian  rights 
and  properties  are  marked  on  page  62  of  Exhibit  8. 

The  San  Gregorio  properties  on  Exhibit  2  are  indicated  in  yellow. 
They  are  riparian  lands,  and  are  just  north  of  the  Pescadero  proper- 
ties in  the  southwest  corner  of  this  Exhibit  2.  They  are  shown  on 

277  map  61  of  Exhibit  8.    These  lands  have  not  been  used,  nor  these  rights 
in  the  supply  of  water  to  San  Francisco. 

The  Locks  Creek  property  is  shown  on  Exhibit  2,  southwest,  and 
over  the  ridge  from  the  Crystal  Springs  Reservoir ;  the  properties  are 
indicated  in  pink,  northeast  of  Half  Moon  Bay,  and  are  not  used  in 
supplying  water  to  the  City  of  San  Francisco.  Shown  on  Exhibit  8, 
map  3,  as  parcels  33,  128,  29,  60  and  a  small  part  of  parcel  5.2,  and 
138.  I  cannot  give  the  amount  of  property  owned  by  the  Spring  Val- 
ley Water  Co.  in  the  drainage  area  marked  out  as  the  Arroyo  Valle 
drainage  area,  as  I  have  not  the  acreage  with  me,  but  I  think  it  is  in 
the  neighborhood  of  4200  acres. 

The  acreages  marked  in  Exhibit  12-d  is  intended  to  give  the 
square  miles  in  the  watershed. 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  MCCUTCHEN. 

I  said  that  I  did  not  have  the  acreage  in  the  Arroyo  Valle  water- 
shed owned  by  the  company,  but  that  I  think  it  is  about  4200  acres. 

1  have  no  record  here  that  will  enable  me  to  state  that  acreage. 

I  have  not  any  figures  here  from  which  I  could  tell  the  areas  in 
the  upper  Alameda  drainage  area,  Calaveras  drainage  area,  San  An- 
tonio drainage  area  and  the  Livermore  drainage  area.  I  can  get  those 

278  figures.     (Question  reserved  until  tomorrow.) 

The  little  dots  running  along  the  Calaveras  Creek  on  Exhibit  12-d 
are  intended  to  show  approximately  the  location  of  the  Sunol  filter 
beds  and  the  gravel  area. 

The  same  type  of  dotting  at  the  Laguna  Creek  opposite  Pleas- 
anton  pump,  is  intended  to  show  the  gravel  beds  at  the  lower  end 
of  the  Livermore  Valley,  from  which  the  company  is  drawing  a  sup- 
ply now.  The  Livermore  drainage  is  supplied  from  the  Mocho, 
which  comes  in  from  the  southeast,  and  is  indicated  here  on  exhibit 

2  as  the  north-easterly  strip  coming  down  and  pointing  toward  the 
town  of  Livermore. 

82 


Sharon 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

The  Tasajero  comes  into  the  Livermore  drainage  about  due 
north  of  the  town  of  Pleasanton. 

The  Positas  starts  in  the  easterly  end  of  the  watershed,  and       279 
comes  in  north  of  the  town  of  Livermore;   it  follows  along  the 
southerly  foothills  of  the  ridge  lying  north  of  the  town  of  Livermore 
and  the  town  of  Pleasanton,  and  finally  gets  into  the  Laguna  Creek. 

The  Arroyo  Valle  starts  in  the  south-easterly  corner  of  exhibit 
2,  and  follows  a  northwesterly  direction  through  the  property  here 
shown,  and  to  the  reservoir  here  indicated  as  the  Arroyo  Valle 
Reservoir.  Then  it  leaves  the  property  of  the  Spring  Valley  Water 
Co.  and  follows  down  the  Arroyo  Valle  Creek;  it  finally  emerges 
from  the  mountains  at  the  northerly  slope  of  the  ridge,  just  south  of 
the  town  of  Livermore,  and  follows  along  the  base  of  the  foothills 
south  and  west  of  Livermore,  and  empties  into  the  Arroyo  Laguna 
near  the  town  of  Pleasanton.  Formerly  the  waters  from  Livermore 
were  brought  down  through  the  Laguna  Creek  to  the  neighborhood' 
of  Sunol;  that  is  the  natural  flow  was  down  there.  I  don't  know 
that  it  has  stopped  yet ;  it  still  goes  on.  It  was  taken  into  the  pipe 
line  in  1909,  when  the  Pleasanton  30-inch  pipe  line  shown  on  exhibit 
2  was  constructed,  and  since  that  time,  the  waters  from  Livermore  280 
are  brought  down  to  Sunol  by  that  30-inch  pipe  line.  The  junction 
point  between  the  Laguna  Creek  and  the  Alameda  Creek  as  shown 
here,  is  near  the  Sunol  water  temple.  On  exhibit  9,  map  F,  268,  it  is 
just  a  little  west  of  the  Sunol  water  temple,  and  is  marked  "Laguna 
Creek". 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  MCCUTCHEN. 

The  two  creeks  are  distinctly  marked,  the  Laguna  Creek  in  one 
case,  and  the  Calaveras,  or  Alameda,  or  whatever  the  name  is,  in 
the  other. 

CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.   STEINHART. 

The  confluence  of  the  Laguna  Creek  and  the  Alameda  Creek 
is  west  of  the  temple. 

The  Hadsell  ditch  is  not  shown  on  exhibit  2.  It  was  constructed 
in  about  the  year  1901,  and  was  used  in  diverting  the  flow  of  Laguna 
Creek  at  about  the  station  Bonita,  on  the  Western  Pacific,  through 
an  open  ditch  and  short  tunnel,  so  that  the  water  from  Laguna 
Creek  would  enter  the  Sunol  filter  beds  at  the  easterly  end.  It  was 
used  up  to  the  time  that  the  Pleasanton  30-inch  pipe  line  was  laid 
in  1909,  but  it  is  not  used  at  the  present  time.  Only  a  portion  of  it 
was  used  as  an  excavation  in  which  to  lay  the  30-inch  pipe.  The  281 
"Bonita  Station  referred  to  is  north  of  the  town  of  Sunol,  between 
Sunol  and  Pleasanton. 

The  filter  galleries  at  Sunol  are  not  laid  in  clay,  but  the  conduit 
that  carries  the  water  from  the  water  temple  down  to  the  Sunol 

83 


Sharon 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

dam,  and  which  is  a  concrete  conduit,  is  in  clay.  It  was  not  in- 
tended for  filtration.  There  are  no  galleries  along  the  point  where 
the  clay  is.  The  beginning  of  the  clay  is  not  shown  on  this  exhibit. 
That  is  a  conduit  carrying  the  waters  from  the  filter  galleries  down 
to  the  Sunol  dam. 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  MCCUTCHEN. 

When  I  say  they  are  one  structure,  I  mean  one  runs  into  the 
other;  they  join  together,  and  that  is  the  only  sense  in  which  they 
are  one  structure. 

CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.   STEINHART. 

I  mean  by  that,  that  where  the  gallery  is  pierced  by  pipes,  it 
serves  as  a  filter  gallery,  and  where  it  is  not  pierced  by  pipes  it 

282  serves  as  a  conduit. 

San  Mateo  Creek,  as  shown  on  exhibit  2,  runs  from  the  western 
arm  of  the  Crystal  Springs  Reservoir,  which  is  in  San  Mateo  Creek, 
and  continues  in  a  north-westerly  direction  right  up  to  the  summit 
line  on  the  north-westerly  corner  of  the  properties  owned  by  the 
Spring  Valley  Water  Co.  San  Mateo  Creek  runs  into  the  Crystal 
Springs  Lake,  and  its  initial  point  is  known  as  Sweeney  Ridge,  and 
it  runs  along  in  a  canyon  between  Sawyer  Ridge,  on  the  east,  and 
Fifield  Ridge  and  Cahill  Ridge  on  the  west. 

The  Pilarcitos  Creek  is  southwest  of  the  San  Mateo  Creek,  and 
lies  between  the  Fifield  and  the  Cahill  Ridge,  and  Montara  mount- 
ains. 

283  The  dotted  lines  on  the  Peninsula  system,  exhibit  12-d,  ought  to 
be  the  same,  as  the  dotted  lines  in  my  segregation  on  exhibit  2. 
They  are  on  a  little  smaller  scale,  and  may  not  show  all  the  kinks 
and  curves  that  are  shown  on  a  larger  scale  map.    There  is  a  further 
sub-division  here.     In  the  upper   San   Mateo   Creek,   there  is   an 
area  shown  as  Davis  Tunnel,  1  square  mile ;  that  means  that  1  square 
mile  of  the  upper  San  Mateo  Creek  is  diverted  through  the  Davis 
Tunnel  into  San  Andres  Reservoir,  and  is  not  allowed  to  run  down 
into  Crystal  Springs  Reservoir. 

Refer  to  exhibit  12-h :  The  top  of  the  dam  at  Calaveras  is  taken 
at  800  feet  above  high  tide,  and  the  flow  line  is  shown  as  795  feet. 
This  corresponds  with  my  column,  ''Overflow  in  bottom  of  reser- 
voir", and  in  connection  with  the  building  of  these  reservoirs  or 

284  dams,  and  in  the  operation  of  the  present  dams,  there  is  a  certain 
amount  of  leeway  allowed  between  the  top  of  the  dam  and  the  over- 
flow, to  take  care  of  freshets  that  come  along  in  the  Winter  season. 
As  the  Winter  season  advances,  and  the  rains  become  less,  it  is 
possible  to  bulk-head  up  the  overflow  a  few  feet,  and  increase  the 
elevation  of  the  reservoirs,  so  that  the  water  may  be  carried  at  a  few 
feet  higher  than  the  actual  overflow  as  shown.     We  do  that  at 

84 


Sharon 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

Crystal  Springs.     There  might  be  slight  discrepancies  of  a  foot  or 
two,  but  they  are  immaterial  in  that  respect. 

To  explain  more  fully  the  difference  that  exists  between  the 
totals  in  the  column  "Mean  Run-off"  and  "Present  Development"; 
in  the  actual  operation,  of  the  Pilarcitos,  San  Andres  and  Crystal 
Springs  Reservoirs,  we  find  that  from  time  to  time  there  is  a  slight 
waste  over  the  dam  at  Crystal  Springs,  and  also  over  the  dam  at 
San  Andres,  and  going  down  into  Crystal  Springs  Reservoir,  and 
then  from  Crystal  Springs  Reservoir  wasted  into  San  Mateo  Creek, 
and  thence  into  San  Francisco  Bay;  so  that  the  actual  run-off  is 
slightly  in  excess  of  that  which  is  taken  to  the  City  of  San  Fran- 
cisco. In  the  case  of  the  Crystal  Springs,  the  Crystal  Springs  Reser- 
voir is  shown  as  having  a  mean  run-off  of  approximately  10.1  million 
gallons  daily,  and  out  of  that  10.1  million  gallons  daily  there  is  the 
supply  that  is  taken  along  the  Crystal  Springs  pipe  line  and  de- 
livered to  the  San  Mateo  water  works  and  other  places  along  the 
line. 

The  column,  "Mean  Run-off,  million  gallons,  approximate", 
means  mean  run-off  million  gallons  daily,  approximate,  as  impounded 
and  wasted  over  the  reservoir.  The  mean  run-off,  million  gallons,  285 
approximate,  as  figured  by  me,  is  not  equivalent  in  amount  to  the 
total  rainfall  upon  the  entire  drainage  area  contributing  to  that 
reservoir,  because  the  total  rainfall  that  comes  over  that  drainage 
area  does  not  run  down  into  the  reservoir.  Some  of  the  water  that 
falls  in  the  form  of  rain  upon  the  drainage  area  enters  the  ground 
and  supplies  plant  life,  and  is  afterwards  evaporated  from  the  sur- 
face of  the  soil;  a  certain  part  of  it  runs  into  the  reservoir  and  is 
evaporated  from  the  surface  thereof,  so  that  the  figures  that  we  show 
there  of  the  total  Peninsula  system,  "Mean  approximate  run-off  19.6 
million  gallons"  is  the  net  run-off  that  we  are  able  to  catch,  and 
the  waste  slightly,  in  certain  big  years.  It  is  due  in  the  Peninsula 
to  the  fact  that  we  have  not  drawn  the  actual  18^  million  gallons 
every  day.  There  is  a  fluctuation.  There  was  not  any  need  for  it. 
One  year  we  may  draw  20  million  gallons  a  day  from  the  reservoirs, 
and  the  next  year  we  may  draw  only  16  million  gallons,  so  that  if 
two  or  three  such  years  occur,  we  would  be  in  the  position  of  accum- 
ulating some  storage  in  the  reservoir  that  would  not  be  there  if  we 
were  drawing  the  average  amount  of  18  million  gallons  daily  from  it. 
It  is  impossible  to  regulate  the  system  so  that  the  reservoir  is  empty, 
necessarily,  at  the  time  the  flows  come.  That  comes  in  the  practical  285^ 
operation  of  the  system,  and  is  not  due  to  any  fault  in  the  construc- 
tion of  that  system.  That  is  a  very  completely  developed  drainage 
system;  I  think  that  the  Peninsula  is  one  of  the  most  completely  de- 
veloped drainage  systems  in  the  world. 

Refer  to  "Exhibit  12-j":  Under  heading  "Peninsula  System",       286 
appears  "same  with  pumping  at  Belmont  through  36  and  54-inch  to 

85 


Sharon 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

Millbrae,  and  44-inch  to  city,  26  million  gallons  daily".  That  means 
that  the  Crystal  Springs  pipe  line  which  has  a  capacity  on  full 
reservoir  without  pumping,  as  shown  in  the  line  above  the  one  you 
just  read,  of  22  million  gallons  a  day,  has  a  capacity  from  the  Mill- 
brae pumping  station  into  the  University  Mound  of  26  million  gallons 
when  the  Belmont  pumps  are  running. 

Refer  to  "Exhibit  12-f " :  The  Brightside  weirs  are  on  the  Sunol 
aqueduct,  and  are  also  below  the  point  where  the  waters  from  Sunol 
and  Livermore  have  entered  the  Sunol  aqueduct,  and  the  measure- 
ment at  that  point  also  includes  the  measurement  of  water  from 
Livermore  as  well  as  from  Sunol. 

Refer  to  "Exhibit  12-h":  The  method  used  to  measure  rainfall 
was  the  common  method  of  measuring  the  water  caught  in  a  grad- 
uated glass. 

Refer  to  "Exhibit  12-e":  The  Isohyetose  lines  there,  showing 

287  24  to  26  inches,  are  the  lines  between  station  107  and  116.    In  sketch- 
ing out  those  lines  I  think  in  a  general  way  all  the  station  rainfalls 
were  used.    It  was  matter  of  judgment.     We  did  not  exclude  any- 
thing in  the  way  of  rainfall  records,  in  the  way  of  making  up  those 
lines;  we  used  everything  we  could  get.     We  considered  the  topo- 
graphical features  as  well  in  connection  with  the  rainfall  station, 
and  also  considered  that  the  rainfall  on  one  side  of  the  ridge  would 
necessarily  be  different  than  the  rainfall  on  the  other  side  of  the 
ridge,  and  we  tried  to  make  allowance  for  that,   in  drawing  the 
Isohyetose  lines.     To  what  extent  allowance  was  made,  I  could  not 
say,  except  to  get  those  lines  to  follow  generally  the  topographical 
features  with  reference  to  the  crest  of  the  mountains ;  there  may  be 
an  error  due  to  wind  gaps  on  valleys,  and  things  of  that  sort.    Those 
are  not  intended  to  be  very  accurate ;  matters  of  that  kind  are  not 
subject  to  any  great  precision,  but  they  are  simply  a  general  indica- 
tion of  our  judgment  from  the  study  of  the  rainfall  as  shown  at  the 
various  stations  located  thereabouts,  as  to  what  the  rainfall  was. 

288  Refer  to  "Exhibit  12-u":  The  figures  at  the  bottom,  "Water 
draft  from  Alameda  system",  include  the  water  drawn  and  distrib- 
uted to  suburban  consumers  of  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Co. 

Refer  to  "Exhibit  12-bb":  For  the  year  1903  there  is  shown 
"Face  of  bonds  $1,000,000,  actual  amount  received  $941,000".  That 
amount  of  $941,000,  or  the  difference  between  $941,000  and  $1,000,- 
000  includes  discounts,  commissions,  and  expenses,  and  the  item  of 
$500,472.26  for  the  year  1904  includes  discounts,  commissions  and 
expenses.  The  same  with  the  item  for  1905,  and  the  same  with  the 
item  for  1906.  In  the  item  for  1906  there  was  a  considerable  expense 
involved  in  redeeming  the  first  mortgage  bonds  by  the  present 
general  mortgage  bonds,  so  that  the  $357,000  as  shown  in  column 
3,  was  not  actually  the  receipts  from  $884,000  worth  of  bonds.  The 
receipts  from  the  $884,000  worth  of  bonds  were  something  less  than 

86 


Sharon 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

$884,000;  in  addition  to  them  there  were  certain  other  expense  in- 
curred in  redeeming  the  first  mortgage  bonds  dated  September  1, 
1876,  and  redeemed  in  1906  by  the  present  general  mortgage  bonds ; 
the  net  amount  there,  $357,000  is  what  was  actually  received  by  the 
company.  The  difference  between  $884,000  and  $357,098  includes 
the  expenses,  commissions  and  amounts  incurred  in  redeeming  the 
first,  second  and  third  mortgage  bonds,  and  also  the  discounts  or 
expenses  incurred  in  selling  that  year  the  $884,000  worth  of  bonds. 
Throughout  this  entire  column  3,  wherever  I  find  discounts,  or  com-  289 
missions,  or  expenses  incurred  in  connection  with  a  bond  issue,  I 
deducted  that  amount  in  getting  at  the  actual  amount  received.  The 
13th  item,  for  the  year  1913,  gold  notes  $1,000,000,  and  in  the  third 
column,  $971,425,  includes  in  the  difference  between  those  two  sums 
the  discounts,  commissions  and  expenses. 

In  regard  to  column  15,  in  the  year  1867,  I  remember  reading 
from  page  263,  minute  book  "B"  of  the  Spring  Valley  Water 
Works. 

My  recollection  is  (page  212  of  J.  J.  Sharon's  testimony)  that 
there  was  a  bill  presented  by  Simpkins  to  the  Spring  Valley  Water 
Works,  and  that  such  a  bill  is  in  the  minutes,  but  I  have  not  looked 
at  it  since.  I  will  look  that  up. 

Concerning  my  testimony  regarding  water  measurements,  I  have 
a  letter  with  me  dated  November  5,  1914,  signed  by  Mr.  Lawrence, 
and  by  Mr.  Bartell,  which  is  addressed  to  Mr.  S.  P.  Eastman,  Man- 
ager of  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Co.  It  reads  as  follows : 

" Dear  Sir:—  290 

"Regarding  the  hydrography  of  the  Alameda  Creek  System  for 
"the  coming  winter  Mr.  Bartel  and  myself  have  gone  over  the 
"various  stations  used  last  year,  and  recommend  that  the  station 
"be  changed  for  the  reasons  stated  as  follows: 

"Mocho  The  present  station  is  located  at  a  bridge.  It  has  been 
"found  that  the  cross  section  of  this  bridge  has  changed  some  five 
"feet  during  the  high  waters,  consequently,  our  gauge  height,  ex- 
"cept  by  constant  gauging  at  the  rise  and  fall  of  flood  waters  would 
"be  of  very  little  value  and  it  is  recommended  that  this  station  be 
"changed  to  a  mile  and  a  half  up  stream  where  there  is  a  compara- 
"tively  long,  straight  channel  with  evidence  of  very  little  change  in 
"the  creek  bottom  which  would  naturally  result  in  a  more  reliable 
"cross  section.  The  cost  of  this  station  installed  would  be  $200.00. 

"Arroyo  Valle  The  present  station  is  located  at  what  is  known 
"as  the  Cresta  Blanca  bridge.  It  has  been  found  that  the  cross  sec- 
"tion  of  this  changes  with  every  high  water.  The  conditions  are 
"further  complicated  by  the  fact  that  the  bridge  is  at  an  angle  with 
"the  stream,  consequently,  it  would  be  necessary  to  do  constant 
"gauging  to  obtain  any  result  as  our  gauge  height  would  be  of  little 

87 


Sharon 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

"value.  We  recommend  that  this  station  be  located  about  one  quar- 
ter of  a  mile  down  stream  where  there  are  two  available  locations. 
"To  build  a  gauging  station  at  either  one  of  these  points  it  will  be 
"necessary  to  obtain  permission  from  the  Cresta  Blanca  people  (Wet- 
"more  Bowen  Co.)  and  L.  C.  Cross.  The  cost  of  installing  this  sta- 
"tion  would  be  about  $450.00. 

"Laguna  Creek  at  Road  2000  This  is  a  very  good  place  to 
"make  stream  measurements  but  the  bridge  is  not  at  right  angles 

291  "with  the  stream,  consequently,  it  will  be  necessary  to  install  a  new 
"bridge  somewhat  to  the  north  in  order  to  obtain  satisfactory  re- 
"  suits.    The  cost  of  changing  the  station  will  be  about  $150.00. 

"San  Antonio  This  station  is  at  a  good  location  but  there  are 
"two  trees  to  be  removed  in  order  to  obtain  satisfactory  results,  also 
"a  bridge  installed.  This  cost  would  be  about  $150.00. 

"Upper  Alameda  Creek  Mr.  Espy  went  over  this  with  Mr. 
"Bartel  and  it  was  agreed  to  locate  this  gauging  station  about  one 
"mile  up  stream  where  there  is  a  satisfactory  location.  The  present 
"station  is  in  a  narrow  rocky  gorge  and  interfered  with  by  large 
"boulders  and  trees.  The  cost  of  this  installation  will  be  about 
"$250.00. 

"Calaveras  Creek  It  was  agreed  by  Mr.  Espy  and  Mr.  Bartel 
"to  locate  this  station  below  the  concrete  culvert  of  the  dam  a  suffi- 
"cient  distance  so  that  the  velocity  from  the  culvert  will  not  affect 
"it.  The  cost  of  the  installation  of  this  station  will  be  about  $350.00. 

"The  locations  here  recommended  are  believed  to  be  the  best 
"available,  and  the  equipment  necessary  for  the  results  sought. 

"By  making  these  installations  it  is  believed  that  very  satisfac- 
tory results  will  be  obtained.  It  is  believed  that  this  expenditure 
"will  result  in  a  very  material  saving  of  labor  both  in  field  and 
"office  and  will  give  records  not  only  of  value  during  the  present 
"year  but  will  permit  of  considerably  less  cost  for  future  main- 
tenance which  was  not  possible  with  the  locations  as  previously. 
"Very  truly  yours, 

"W.B.LAWRENCE, 
"M.J.  BARTEL." 

292  I  believe  those  changes  were  made. 

SIXTH  HEARING.  JULY  20,  1915. 

Witnesses  JOHN  JOSEPH  SHARON  and  A.  S.  BALDWIN. 
294  Witness  JOHN  JOSEPH  SHARON. 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  OLNEY. 

There  was  made  under  my  supervision  the  computation  of  the 
acreages  of  the  various  parts  of  the  Lake  Merced  tract,  into  which 
Mr.  Baldwin  has  divided  the  property  for  the  purpose  of  valuation, 
and  the  results  of  these  computations  were  correct  and  were  fur- 

88 


Sharon 


SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

nished  to  Mr.  Baldwin.  The  watersheds  of  Pilarcitos,  San  Andres 
and  Crystal  Springs,  were  divided  into  sub-divisions  for  the  purposes 
of  valuation,  according  to  the  tracts  in  which  they  were  originally 
purchased,  and  some  of  them  were  partly  under  water  and  partly 
watershed  lands. 

Computation  was  also  made  under  my  supervision  of  the  acre- 
ages of  these  particular  sub-divisions  which  were  under  water  and 
which  were  in  the  watershed.  These  I  also  furnished  to  Mr.  Bald- 
win, and  the  acreages  so  given  him  were  correct. 


295 


Witness  A.  S.  BALDWIN. 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  OLNEY. 

Am  a  real  estate  agent  in  San  Francisco,  and  have  been  about 
thirty  years.  I  am  president  of  the  corporation  of  Baldwin  & 
Howell,  and  have  been  associated  in  business  with  several  other 
gentlemen,  Mr.  R.  R.  Hammond  and  Mr.  McAfee.  I  was  first  with 
the  firm  of  McAfee  Bros.,  being  a  partner  of  the  firm  for  seven  or 
eight  years,  and  following  that  the  firm  was  changed  to  McAfee, 
Baldwin  &  Hammond  in  1891  or  92,  and  continued  under  that  name 
for  about  two  or  three  years ;  in  1898  I  took  in  Mr.  Howell,  and  the 
firm  has  been  Baldwin  &  Howell  ever  since  1897  or  1898. 

I  have  had  experience  in  dealing  in  real  estate  for  thirty  years 
in  the  City  and  County  of  San  Francisco,  and  my  dealings  covered 
any  section  of  the  city  wherever  we  could  do  business ;  in  fact  prac- 
tically every  portion  of  it.  I  have  been  employed  by  the  Spring 
Valley  Water  Co.  to  make  a  valuation  of  its  properties  in  San  Fran- 
cisco, and  have  made  such  a  valuation  of  the  properties,  exclusive 
of  the  Lake  Merced  tract.  In  making  that  valuation  I  have  ignored 
the  presence  of  any  structures  in  the  way  of  tanks,  buildings  or  res- 
ervoirs, or  any  improvements  of  that  character.  I  have  not  con- 
sidered in  my  valuation  any  improvements  on  the  properties  what- 
ever. In  the  case  of  a  reservoir  I  assumed  in  making  the  value  that 
attaches  to  any  property  in  which  there  is  a  reservoir,  that  the  reser- 
voir was  not  there,  and  that  the  land  was  substantially  on  the  level 
of  the  grade  surrounding  the  reservoir,  or  as  near  as  it  has  been 
possible  to  figure  the  property  in  its  natural  condition. 

I  was  endeavoring  to  determine  simply  the  fair  market  value 
as  of  December  31,  1913,  and  these  valuations  were  made  about  a 
year  ago,  and  have  been  modified  or  changed  slightly  within  the  last 
month.  This  appraisement  was  a  contemporaneous  appraisement  as 
of  the  date  December  31,  1913.  With  regard  to  the  properties  of 
the  company  in  San  Francisco,  exclusive  of  the  Lake  Merced  lands, 
I  compared  my  valuation  with  persons  employed  in  behalf  of  the 
City.  In  many  instances  we  were  almost  identically  the  same,  in 

89 


Baldwin 


296 


297 


298 


SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

others  we  differed  slightly,  but  the  valuations  which  are  now  on  the 
various  properties,  or  which  I  have  submitted,  or  will  submit,  are 
the  same,  so  I  understand,  as  those  which  have  been  made  by  the 
298-299  City  appraisers.  (It  was  here  suggested  by  the  Master  that  if  the 
exhibit  were  in  such  shape  as  would  permit  of  its  being  offered  in 
bulk,  that  it  could  be  so  admitted  and  thus  save  the  recital  of  each 
particular  tract ;  that  it  would  thus  save  the  record  and  also  the  time 
of  reading  it  over.  Counsel  for  the  City  could  then  specify  the  prop- 
erties that  should  be  excluded). 

A  list  of  the  properties  in  San  Francisco,  with  the  valuation, 
excluding  the  Lake  Merced  lands,  that  have  been  put  upon  them  by 
Mr.  Baldwin  was  then  offered  in  evidence  as  "Plaintiff's  Exhibit  13". 

Objected  to  upon  the  ground  that  it  was  immaterial,  irrelevant 
and  incompetent,  and  that  certain  of  the  items  are  not  used  and 
useful.  It  was  received  and  marked  as  "Plaintiff's  Exhibit  13"  with 
the  reservation  that  -counsel  for  the  City  objects  to  certain  of  the 
items  as  being  not  used  and  useful. 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  OLNEY. 

The  total  of  that  list  is  $1,166,685.10,  and  the  parcels  thereon 

300  are  numbered  according  to  the  map. 

301  Here  discussion  ensued  between  the  Master  and  counsel  as  to 

302  the  correctness  of  the  record  on  the  proposition  that  the  properties 
are  in  use  and  useful. 

Counsel  for  the  City  stated  his  reason  for  considering  it  irrele- 
vant and  immaterial,  in  that  the  question  involves  an  investigation, 
in  so  far  as  the  properties  are  concerned,  as  to  whether  or  not  the 
property  is  used  or  useful,  and  the  condemnation  proceedings,  in  so 
far  as  they  omitted  property  would  show  that  at  least  in  the 
opinion  of  the  City,  that  property  was  not  used  and  useful,  but  the 
inclusion  of  property  in  the  condemnation  suit  is  not  evidence  as  to 
its  being  used  and  useful.  The  City  may  have  taken  it  for  entirely 
different  reasons,  or  for  entirely  future  use. 

Counsel  for  Plaintiff  stated  that  he  would  offer  the  complaint  in 
the  condemnation  suit  as  evidence,  and  have  further  proof,  also,  in 
regard  to  the  character  of  these  properties.  Suggested  by  the  Master 
that  Mr.  Sharon  or  any  qualified  witness  testify  as  to  what  was  the 
fact,  and  that  in  regard  to  the  question  whether  a  particular  piece 
of  property  is  used  and  useful,  after  such  evidence  of  a  prima  facie 
character  was  introduced,  it  would  be  for  the  City  to  deduce  the 
facts  to  support  their  opinion  that  it  was  not  used  or  useful. 

303  DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  OLNEY. 

I  am  acquainted  with  the  Lake  Merced  properties  of  the  Spring 
Valley  Water  Co.,  and  have  handled  a  good  deal  of  property  in  that 
particular  neighborhood.  In  buying — one  particular  instance  was 
the  Sutro  tract.  A  syndicate  was  organized  which  purchased  that 

90 


SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

over  three  years  ago,  and  sold  it  off  to  other  parties  who  are  now 
sub-dividing  it.  That  involved  in  round  numbers  in  the  original 
purchase  $1,500,000  and  subsequent  sales  amounting  to  probably 
$1,000,000  more.  I  think  I  am  acquainted  with  the  value  of  land 
in  that  locality,  and  I  have  made  as  careful  an  appraisement  of  the 
Lake  Merced  lands  of  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Co.  as  I  know  how. 

I  made  three  sales  out  of  the  Sutro  tract;  one  tract  82  acres, 
which  is  now  Forest  Hill,  another  of  about  173  acres,  which  includes 
St.  Francis  Wood  and  the  proposed  addition,  and  another  of  142  or 
143  acres  taking  in  what  is  known  as  Claremont  Court,  El  Portal, 
and  I  think  Hawkins'  Sub-Division,  and  Forest  Hill  Annex.  304 

A  portion  of  the  Sutro  tract  is  just  across  the  way  from  the 
Lake  Merced  property,  but  the  Sutro  tract  is  in  many  portions  steep 
and  rugged ;  there  is  proportionately,  I  think,  more  waste  land  on 
the  Sutro  property  than  there  is  on  the  Lake  Merced  tract.  It  lies 
on  the  western  slope  of  hills  there  looking  toward  the  Lake  Merced 
property,  and  a  part  of  it  is  immediately  across  the  Junipero  Serra 
Boulevard  from  the  Lake  Merced  lands. 

We  sold  a  15  acre  tract  in  that  immediate  neighborhood  in  1912, 
known  as  the  German  General  Benervolent  Society  tract,  which  fronts 
on  Junipero  Serra  Boulevard  adjoining  St.  Francis  Wood.  This  is 
across  the  way  from  the  north-easterly  corner  of  the  Lake  Merced 
tract. 

We  have  not  sold  any  other  acreage  property  there.  We  had  305 
cooperated  with  the  Mason  McDuffie  Co.  in  the  handling  of  St. 
Francis  Wood,  but  only  as  associated  sales  agent.  We  have  been 
concerned  with  retail  sales  in  that  neighborhood  only  in  the 
St.  Francis  Wood  tract.  I  am  acquainted  with  purchases  and  sales 
in  that  neighborhood  which  I  have  from  information  from  time  to 
time  received  from  people  who  are  handling  those  tracts. 

Park  Side  District  is  immediately  opposite  the  Lake  Merced 
tract,  facing  on  the  Sloat  Boulevard,  and  extends  from  there  north- 
erly; the  Ingleside  Terraces  are  on  the  Junipero  Serra  Boulevard, 
opposite  the  Lake  Merced  property. 

I  have  been  over  the  Lake  Merced  lands  numerous  times  and 
examined  it  carefully  for  the  purpose  of  determining  what  the  value 
of  it  is,  but  I  did  not  take  into  consideration  the  fact  that  the  land 
has  a  value  for  water  producing  property.  I  valued  them  just  as  I 
would  any  other  property.  My  valuations  are  upon  the  basis  of  306 
what  the  entire  tract  would  sell  for  wholesale,  in  its  entirety,  and 
for  the  purpose  of  reaching  a  total  value  I  graded  it  into  various 
parcels,  not  with  particular  reference  to  the  quality  of  the  land,  but 
for  determining  the  value  with  reference  especially  to  portions  of 
the  property  which  had  the  highest  valuation  and  the  lowest  value. 
I  started  at  one  point  in  the  property  that  I  think  is  the  most  val- 

91 


SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

uable  and  then  worked  from  that.    I  have  those  various  parcels  into 
which  I  so  sub-divided  the  property  shown  on  the  map. 

Offered  in  evidence  as  "Plaintiff's  Exhibit  14". 

Objected  to  upon  the  ground  that  it  was  immaterial,  irrelevant 
and  incompetent;  the  test  is  the  value  of  the  land  as  a  whole,  and  it 
is  immaterial  as  to  what  these  sub-divisions  are  worth.  Objection 
overruled  and  map  marked  "Plaintiff's  Exhibit  14". 

307  Here  is  presented  the  tabulation  of  valuations  on  the  San  Fran- 

308-309     cisco  lands,  which  will  be  marked  "Plaintiff's  Exhibit  13". 

I  have  numbered  these  various  parcels  (speaking  of  Lake  Mer- 

310  ced)  into  which  I  have  sub-divided  the  lands  consecutively  1,  2  and 
3,  and  have  lettered  some  of  them  as  well.     Objected  to  upon  the 
ground  that  it  is  irrelevant,  immaterial  and  incompetent.    Objection 
is  overruled. 

Q.  Now,  what  was  the  value,  market  value,  of  the  Lake 
Merced  lands  of  the  company  December  31,  1913,  exclusive  of  the 
lakes? 

A.     $6,718,250,  or  an  average  of  $2,691.68  an  acre. 
Q.     Now,  how  do  you  get  at  that  value,  Mr.  Baldwin,  that 
figure? 

A.     I  get  at  it  by- 
Objected  to  as  immaterial,  irrelevant  and  incompetent  and  cross 
examination  of  the  Plaintiff's  own  witness,  and  that  it  comes  within 
the  case  of  Neal  vs.  San  Diego,  88  California.    Objection  overruled. 
The  market  value  of  the  Lake  Merced  lands  of  the  Spring  Valley 
Water  Co.  December  31,  1913,  exclusive  of  the  lakes  is  $6,718,250,  or 

311  an  average  of  $2,691.68  an  acre.    That  value  I  got  at  by  arranging 
the  property  in  various  tracts,  according  to  the  map,  and  then  graded 
it  by  valuation  in  what  I  conceived  to  be  the  best  and  most  conserva- 
tive method.    Also  as  regards  the  topography  of  the  tract ;  I  have  a 
description  of  each  one  of  these  tracts  with  regard  to  topography. 

Counsel  for  the  City:  It  may  be  stipulated  that  our  objection 
goes  to  this  entire  line  of  testimony. 

The  Master :    Yes. 

Tract  No.  1,  situated  at  the  intersection  of  Sloat  and  Junipero 
Serra  Boulevard  immediately  west  of  St.  Francis  Wood,  and  Balboa 
Terrace,  all  level  land,  26  acres,  $6,000  an  acre,  $156,000. 

Tract  No.  2,  immediately  west  of  tract  1,  fronting  on  Sloat 
Boulevard,  including  area  covered  by  Central  Pumping  Station,  also 
including  home  place  or  nursery  tract,  which  is  situated  in  the  ex- 
treme westerly  portion  of  tract  2.  All  of  this  tract  is  practically 

312  level.    The  25  or  30  acres  included  in  the  home  place,  by  reason  of 
the  fine  growth  of  trees,  have  in  my  opinion  a  somewhat  greater 
value  per  acre  than  the  balance  of  the  tract.    235  acres  at  $5,000  per 
acre,  $1,175,000. 

92 


SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

Tract  No.  3  at  the  intersection  of  the  Great  Highway  and  Sloat 
Boulevard.  About  seven  acres  is  situated  on  the  northerly  line  of 
Sloat  Boulevard.  The  balance,  about  100  acres,  is  broken  and  uneven 
and  is  in  parts  low  and  covered  to  some  extent  with  the  seepage 
from  the  lakes.  The  property  has  great  potential  value  because  it 
is  the  only  property  in  San  Francisco  privately  owned  having  a 
frontage  on  the  Pacific  Ocean  with  the  exception  of  a  small  area 
owned  by  the  Sutro  estate  at  Lands  End.  It  is  especially  adaptable 
for  use  as  an  out-of-doors  resort,  and  it  is  more  than  likely  that  with 
the  growth  and  development  of  the  city  the  tract  will  be  utilized 
at  some  time  in  the  near  future  for  this  purpose.  107  acres  at  $4,500, 
$481,500. 

The  land  immediately  to  the  north,  and  across  Sloat  Boulevard,  in- 
dicated by  the  same  coloring  as  the  tract  marked  3,  is  included  in 
my  acreage  valuation.  There  is  about  seven  acres  of  that  and  about 
100  in  the  other,  making  about  107  acres. 

I  will  make  a  revaluation  which  will  eliminate  this  7  acres  which 
lies  north  of  the  Sloat  Boulevard,  at  $5,000  an  acre  that  property  is 
worth  more  per  acre  than  this,  and  is  about  the  same  value  as  the 
property  on  the  opposite  side  of  Sloat  Boulevard.  I  will  eliminate 
on  account  of  the  7  acres  $35,000  in  valuation,  making  my  net  valu-  313 
ation  $481,500  less  $35,000. 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  MCCUTCHEN. 

My  net  valuation  is  $446,500.  Tract  No.  4,  fronting  on  Junipero 
Serra  Boulevard,  opposite  Ingleside  Terrace.  About  100  acres  of  this 
tract  is  level,  and  the  balance  of  about  90  acres  consists  of  two 
swales  or  depressions,  a  large  portion  of  which,  however,  -could  be 
utilized  by  methods  of  terracing  for  residential  purposes.  These 
portions  of  the  swales  or  depressions  which  were  not  so  used  could 
be  made  particularly  attractive  as  parking  strips,  which  would  add 
to  the  value  of  the  adjacent  lands  enough  to  offset  the  loss  of  acreage 
so  used.  100  acres  at  $5,000  per  acre,  $500,000,  and  90  acres  at 
$3,000,  $270,000. 

The  100  acres  is  the  level  portion  of  the  tract  and  is  near  the 
center,  and  the  90  acres,  I  think,  is  about  60  acres  in  the  northerly 
part,  and  about  30  acres  in  the  southerly  part.  They  are  in  a  hollow 
which  runs  up  into  the  level  land. 

Tract  No.  5 ;  this  is  a  very  fine  tract  fronting  on  Junipero  Serra 
Boulevard,  immediately  south  of  tract  4.  Total  area  about  471  acres. 
Of  this  area  about  177  acres  constitutes  the  plateau  or  peninsula  314 
between  the  northerly  and  southerly  lake.  With  the  exception  of 
8 "or  10  acres  the  entire  tract  is  level.  The  8  or  10  acres  is  indicated 
in  the  south-westerly  corner.  There  is  quite  a  growth  of  trees,  and 
a  slight  depression  there.  The  valuation  of  the  471  acres  is  $4,000 
per  acre,  or  $1,884,000. 


SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

Tract  No.  6,  situated  on  the  westerly  side  of  the  Junipero  Serra 
Boulevard,  immediately  north  of  the  boundary  line  between  the  City 
of  San  Francisco  and  the  County  of  San  Mateo,  practically  all  level 
land.  143  acres  at  $3,000  an  acre,  $429,000. 

Tract  No.  7,  on  the  westerly  line  of  Junipero  Serra  Boulevard, 
immediately  south  of  the  county  line.  This  tract  contains  several  large 
swales  or  depressions,  which,  however,  are  not  by  any  means  waste 
land.  The  total  area  in  these  depressions  is  about  114  acres.  The 
northerly  depression  being  about  60  acres,  and  the  southerly  one  64. 
The  balance  of  the  tract  containing  294  acres  is  practically  level.  The 
Ocean  Shore  Railroad  extends  through  the  easterly  and  southerly  por- 
tions of  this  property.  294  acres  at  $2,000,  $588,000,  114  acres  at 
$1,000  per  acre,  $114,000. 

Tract  No.  8,  this  tract  constitutes  all  of  the  balance  of  the  land 
owned  by  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Co.  in  the  County  of  San  Mateo 
within  the  limits  of  the  Merced  Ranch,  except  about  48  acres  in  and 
around  the  settling  pond  or  basin.  With  the  exception  of  about  55 
acres  near  the  center  of  the  tract  which  contains  some  steep  slopes  and 
is  somewhat  broken,  and  with  the  exception  of  about  43  acres  of  pre- 
cipitous lands,  constituting  the  cliffs  which  front  on  the  Pacific  Ocean, 
the  entire  tract  is  either  level  or  the  slopes  are  moderate  and  give,  if 
anything,  a  somewhat  added  value  to  the  property.  The  Ocean  Shore 

315  Railroad  extends  through  the  southerly  portion  of  this  tract.    271  acres 
at  $1,500  an  acre,  $406,500;  98  acres  at  $500  an  acre,  $49,000. 

Tract  No.  9 ;  situated  on  the  westerly  slope  of  the  southern  lake 
immediately  north  of  Tract  8,  sloping  from  the  50  to  the  150  foot  con- 
tour, a  particularly  well  sheltered  portion  of  the  property.  65  acres 
at  $1,750  per  acre,  $113,750. 

Tract  No.  10;  fronting  on  the  Pacific  Ocean,  and  constituting  all 
of  the  land  between  the  Pacific  Ocean  and  the  50  foot  contour  above 
the  southerly  lake.  Somewhat  broken  in  character,  but  commanding 
panoramic  view  in  all  directions ;  206  acres  at  $1,250  an  acre,  $257,500. 
Strip  along  the  easterly  side  of  Junipero  Serra  Boulevard,  20  feet 
wide,  the  value  of  which  is  largely  strategic,  because  it  prevents  adja- 
cent owners  access  to  the  boulevard,  about  6  acres ;  that  extends  nearly 
the  entire  length  of  the  land ;  6  acres  at  $4,000  per  acre,  $24,000. 

Questioned  by  Master. 

This  strip  is  along  the  easterly  side  of  Junipero  Serra  Boulevard, 
and  was  reserved  by  the  company  at  the  time  the  boulevard  was  laid 
out. 

CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.   STEINHART. 

As  to  the  northerly  and  southerly  limits;  it  is  in  front  of  Ingle- 
side  Terraces,  and  I  think  it  runs  to  the  southern  line  of  the  ranch. 

316  It  does  not  make  any  difference  whether  it  runs  to  the  end  of  the  ranch 
or  not,  because  I  am  only  valuing  it  by  the  acre,  unless  it  might  have 

94 


SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

more  value  in  front  of  some  particular  property  than  in  front  of  some 
other  property. 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  OLNEY. 

Tract  A,  the  canyon  between  Tracts  5  and  6,  extending  from  Juni- 
pero  Serra  Boulevard  to  the  southerly  lake,  is  about  62  acres. 

Tract  B,  settling  pond  or  basin,  with  adjacent  land,  in  the  north- 
erly part  of  San  Mateo  County,  and  partly  in  San  Francisco  County, 
about  48  acres.  Marginal  land,  a  strip  around  the  northerly  and 
southerly  lakes,  varying  in  width  according  to  the  contour  of  the  land, 
about  160  acres ;  the  total  of  those  is  270  acres,  which  I  put  at  $1,000 
an  acre,  $270,000.  I  value  altogether  2,496  acres,  which  includes  the 
piece  north  of  Sloat  Boulevard,  and  the  total  result  I  have  already 
testified  to  is  $6,718,250,  which,  in  my  opinion,  was  the  market  value 
of  the  land,  which  I  have  valued  as  a  whole,  on  December  31,  1913.  317 

(This  table  marked  "Plaintiff's  Exhibit  15",  subject  to  the  ob- 
jections which  the  Defendant  has  made.  The  exclusions  of  the  strip 
on  the  north  of  the  boulevard  should  be  taken  into  consideration.) 

Whether  there  are  7  or  12  acres  in  that  land  to  be  excluded,  in  my 
judgment  it  would  be  excluded  at  the  rate  of  $5,000  an  acre,  that  is 
the  market  price  of  that  portion  of  the  land,  whatever  its  acreage  may 
be.  The  value  which  I  have  put  upon  the  tract  as  a  whole  is  not  sub- 
ject to  the  Twin  Peaks  Tunnel  assessment;  this  assessment  is  not  con- 
sidered because  it  had  not  been  paid,  or  any  portion  of  it  paid  as  of 
December  31,  1913.  I  think  it  would  have  been  possible  to  have  sold 
the  tract  on  December  31,  1913,  for  the  figures  which  I  have  mentioned, 
taking  a  reasonable  time  to  make  a  sale,  subject  to  the  Twin  Peaks 
Tunnel  assessment. 

The  Twin  Peaks  Tunnel  project  has  increased  values  to  some  ex-  318 
tent,  certainly  to  the  extent  of  any  assessment  that  exists  for  construc- 
tion of  the  tunnel.  I  think  the  property  is  worth,  or  was  worth  on 
December  31,  1913,  the  value  that  I  put  on  it,  plus  the  Twin  Peaks 
Tunnel  assessment  if  it  had  been  paid  at  that  time.  My  value  does  not 
include  anything  by  reason  of  the  proximity  of  the  lakes. 

The  following  answer  is  objected  to  upon  the  ground  that  it  is    318-319 
immaterial,  irrelevant  and  incompetent.     The  question  was  permitted 
to  be  answered  with  the  understanding  that  any  authorities  which  the 
defendants  might  later  submit  would  be  considered  at  that  time. 

If  the  lakes  were  considered  in  conjunction  with  the  lands,  that  is, 
if  the  owner  of  the  property  were  not  only  the  owner  of  the  lakes,  but 
of  both  the  lands  and  the  lakes,  and  if  they  were  free  of  any  public 
trust  or  dedication  to  a  public  use,  so  that  the  owner  was  perfectly  free 
to  dispose  of  them  together,  and  to  use  or  dispose  of  the  lakes  or  the 
rights  in  the  lakes  in  such  a  manner  as  to  assist  the  sale  of  the  lands, 
I  think  it  would  add  at  least  10  per  cent  to  my  value  of  the  property. 
If  2,496  acres  were  worth  $6,718,250,  the  336  acres  constituting  the 

95 


Baldwin 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

two  lakes,  being  thrown  into  the  property,  that  is,  selling  with  or  with- 
out the  lakes,  would  give  an  added  value  to  the  property  of  at  least 
10  per  cent. 

Questioned  by  the  Master. 

In  the  first  valuation  that  I  made  of  $6,718,250,  I  had  in  mind 
that  the  lakes  are  there,  but  I  have  not  given  any  value  to  the  property 
by  reason  of  their  presence,  and  this  additional  value  does  not  mean 
that  I  am  adding  10  per  cent  by  reason  of  the  fact  that  the  lakes  are 
there,  but  because  they  are  thrown  into  the  pot,  as  it  were,  in  selling 
the  2,496  acres. 

320  DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  OLNEY. 

My  reason  for  thinking  the  value  of  the  land  would  be  increased 
if  the  lakes  were  thrown  in  with  the  rest  of  the  land,  is  that  they  might 
be  used  as  a  water  supply  for  the  land  in  question,  and  if  there  was 
any  reason  for  not  being  able  to  use  them,  the  lakes  could  be  utilized 
for  boats  and  other  purposes.  They  could  be  devoted  exclusively  to 
the  property  owners  within  the  boundaries  of  that  tract  for  either 
purpose. 

I  have  handled  property  in  San  Mateo  County  off  and  on  for  more 
than  20  years.  My  first  experience  of  any  consequence  was  in  the 
development  of  the  Burlingame  property.  I  represented  the  Sharon 
Estate,  which  owned  the  property,  and  we  began  operations,  I  think, 
in  1893.  The  Sharon  Tract  is  at  Burlingame  in  what  is  known  as 
Burlingame  and  Hillsboro.  It  includes  the  better  portion  of  those 
towns,  the  more  valuable  property,  and  ran  from  the  County  Road  up 
to  the  foothills.  Portions  have  been  subdivided  into  small  lots  that 
I  think  are  within  the  corporate  limits  of  Burlingame,  while  other 
portions  of  it  constitute  what  is  known  as  Hillsboro  and  Burlingame. 

321  The  company  owned,  I  think,  500  or  600  acres  there  altogether.    We 
sold  quite  a  lot  of  it,  and  what  was  left  was  subsequently  sold  to  a  syn- 
dicate which  Lyon  &  Hoag  were  interested  in.     They  cut  it  up  into 
small  tracts. 

We  also  sold  considerable  property  for  the  Bowie  Estate,  in  what 
was  known  as  El  Cerito,  and  we  laid  out  the  property  known  as  San 
Mateo  Park  in  about  1901  or  2,  which  was  about  300  acres.  It  has 
since  been  sold  off.  That  was  not  the  Hayward  property,  that  was 
the  property  owned  by  the  Clark  Estate.  It  lies  north  of  San  Mateo, 
and  is  now  a  part  of  San  Mateo  City,  I  think.  I  sold  the  property  now 
known  as  Uplands  to  Colonel  Crocker,  which  formerly  belonged  to  W. 
H.  Howard.  I  sold  Mr.  Irwin  the  Carolan  place  in  Burlingame. 

The  Clark  Tract,  or  San  Mateo  Park,  is  about  the  only  property 
outside  of  some  Hayward  tracts,  which  we  purchased  for  several  syn- 
dicates, in  which  I  have  had  any  experience  in  the  purchase  or  sale 
of  large  undivided  tracts  in  San  Mateo  County.  I  think  we  have  been 
either  directly  or  indirectly  connected,  perhaps,  with  all  the  principal 

96 


Baldwin 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

sales  around  the  neighborhood  of  San  Mateo  and  Burlingame  within 
the  past  20  years. 

We  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  sale  of  the  Horace  Hawes  Tract       322 
in  Redwood  City,  known  as  the  Dingee  Tract,  in  its  original  shape,  but 
we  subsequently  sold  a  number  of  lots  in  Dingee  Park,  and  then  after- 
wards sold  to  the  Geo.  H.  Irving  Co.  the  remaining  lots,  which  they 
took  over  wholesale,  and  which  they  are  now  developing. 

I  do  not  think  that  we  had  anything  to  do  with  the  sale  of  any 
of  the  Hooper  property  back  of  Redwood  City.  I  have  frequently 
been  over  the  so-called  watershed  land  of  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Co. 
in  San  Mateo  County  around  the  reservoirs  of  Pilarcitos,  San  Andres 
and  Crystal  Springs.  I  have  known  these  lands  in  a  general  way,  I  323 
suppose,  during  the  last  15  or  20  years,  and  I  have  gone  down  there 
very  frequently.  I  have  made  an  examination  of  these  lands  for  the 
purpose  of  ascertaining  the  value  of  them,  and  I  have  been  over  them 
all.  I  have,  in  a  general  way,  been  fairly  familiar  with  the  values  of 
adjacent  properties  and  have  endeavored  in  determining  the  value  of 
these  lands  to  obtain  information  bearing  upon  the  value  of  similar 
lands  in  the  nearby  vicinity,  and  I  finally  reached  a  result  as  to  what 
they  were  worth.  The  total  value  which  I  have  placed  on  the  22,982.45 
acres  of  the  so-called  watershed  lands  of  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Co. 
in  San  Mateo  County  is  $3,000,363.90.  As  far  as  I  know  it  does  not  324 
include  any  of  the  lands  in  the  reservoir.  Two  maps  offered  and  ad- 
mitted and  marked  "Plaintiff's  Exhibits  16  and  17".  The  smaUer 
map  will  be  marked  "Plaintiff's  Exhibit  17". 

I  got  this  value  of  $3,000,363.90  by  placing  a  value  on  each  of  the 
parcels  according  to  the  company's  maps,  guided  by  that  contour  map 
which  was  of  considerable  aid  in  determining  the  contours  of  the  prop- 
erty and  similar  locations. 

Q.  I  think  we  had  better  go  through  this  parcel  by  parcel.  It 
is  going  to  be  somewhat  long  but  it  is  the  right  way,  I  think,  of  doing 
it.  Will  you  take  up  parcel  by  parcel,  Mr.  Baldwin,  these  pieces,  and 
describe  them,  and  state  to  the  Court  the  value  you  put  upon  them? 

Mr.  Steinhart:  It  is  stipulated,  is  it  not,  that  all  this  testimony 
is  open  to  the  objections  we  have  made  heretofore  and  that  we  are 
making  them  now  and  that  the  same  ruling  is  made? 

Mr.  Olney :    What  is  the  objection,  Mr.  Steinhart  ? 

Mr.  Steinhart:    The  objection  is  that  Mr.  Baldwin's  evidence  of 
valuation  is  immaterial,  irrelevant  and  incompetent  because  it  is  a       325 
special  value,  and  furthermore,  because  it  is  a  segregated  value. 

Mr.  Olney :    We  have  no  objection  to  that  stipulation. 

The  Master:    Very  well.     The  objection  will  be  overruled. 

I  valued  it  as  a  whole,  I  simply  arrived  at  that  value  by  taking 
the  different  parcels.  I  did  not  give  any  special  value  by  reason  of 
the  fact  that  it  was  water  producing.  I  valued  them  as  a  tract  of 

97 


Baldwin 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

326  22,000  or  23,000  acres,  not  having  in  mind  any  special  value  as  at- 
taching to  the  property  by  reason  of  a  water  supply  any  more  than  the 
normal  or  any  other  water  supply  that  there  would  be  on  other  lands 
in  San  Mateo  County.     I  have  not  considered  the  water  element  in 
any  way.     I  did  not  consider  the  lake.    I  valued  this  property — the 
watershed — just  as  if  the  lake  were  not  there,  and  it  was  a  valley  in- 
stead of  a  lake.    I  did  not  investigate  the  water  features  of  any  par- 
ticular tract.     There  might  be  some  of  the  tracts  which  by  reason  of 
water  would  have  a  greater  value  than  I  put  on  them.    I  considered 

327  that  just  as  I  would  any  other  lands  there,  that  a  buyer  would  have 
the  same  chance  of  getting  water  for  domestic,  or  for  any  other  pur- 
pose, that  he  would  if  he  bought  any  other  land  in  San  Mateo  County. 
There  are  lands  being  sold  in  many  places  around  Woodside  and  else- 
where that  are  being  sold  with  no  assurance  that  they  can  get  water ; 
sometimes  you  get  it  in  considerable  quantities,  and  sometimes  you 
don't  get  it  at  all.    I  do  assume  that  the  purchaser  of  the  land  would 
have  the  right  to  put  down  wells.    I  assume  that  a  man  would  have 
the  right  to  do  with  that  land  just  as  he  would  do  with  any  other  land 
he  were  buying  there,  and  to  the  extent  to  which  the  ownership  of  the 
land  gave  him  the  right  to  use  the  water  for  domestic  purposes,  or 
irrigation,  or  anything  else  on  the  land.    I  would  assume  that  he  would 
get  whatever  rights  went  with  the  land,  and  in  the  nature  of  things, 

328  the  water. 

I  did  not  consider  as  an  element  of  value  the  possibility  of  water 
being  gathered  on  these  lands  and  taken  elsewhere  and  supplied  to 
another  community.  In  making  the  valuations,  I  have  already  said 
I  simply  ignored  the  water  elements  in  the  land  as  I  did  with  Lake 
Merced.  I  have  assumed  that  the  purchaser  of  these  pieces  would  have 
the  right  to  use  whatever  water  there  was  on  the  land  or  in  connec- 
tion with  it  for  domestic  purposes  or  for  irrigation,  or  whatever  use 
he  might  have  the  right  to  put  the  water  to  on  the  land,  and  that  he 
certainly  would  not  be  restricted  in  the  use  of  the  land  by  any  un- 
reasonable objections;  that  there  would  be  no  conditions  attached  to 
the  land  that  would  have  a  tendency  to  depreciate  the  value  of  it.  In 
other  words,  I  treated  it  as  if  it  was  not  being  dedicated  to  a  public 
use  at  all. 

329  Questioned  by  the  Master. 

I  was  not  treating  it  from  the  point  of  view  of  its  value  to  the 
water  company,  but  to  the  general  public. 

330  (Citation  of  authorities  by  Mr.  Steinhart  in  re  speculative  values 
of  lands.) 

Argument  by  Mr.  Olney  against  citations  as  cited  by  Mr.  Stein- 

334  hart. 

335  The  Master :    I  will  examine  the  citations  and  announce  a  ruling 
later. 

98 


Baldwin 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 
DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  OLNEY. 

The  subdivisions  as  shown  on  the  map  were  not  made  by  me.  They 
were  given  to  me.  The  acreage  almost  always  corresponds  with  the  336 
map,  for  the  reason  that  I  have  only  valued  the  land  outside  of  the 
lakes,  and  to  begin  with,  in  parcel  2  on  maps  2  and  3,  which  is  up  near 
Pilarcitos,  and  has  40  acres,  I  have  only  valued  20.41  acres.  The  bal- 
ance of  19.60  acres  is  under  water. 

CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.   STEINHART. 

I  valued  them  in  a  measure  separately,  but  with  a  view  of  ascer- 
taining the  value  of  the  entire  property.  In  some  instances  the  valu- 
ation separately  is  not  by  any  means  of  advantage  to  the  company, 
for  the  reason  that  in  a  few  instances  they  are  in  very  bad  shape, 
probably  they  had  been  bought,  I  assume,  as  they  were  owned  for  many 
years,  in  triangular  shape.  Now,  perhaps,  the  adjoining  land  is  better 
situated  for  boundary  purposes,  or  not  being  at  a  disadvantage  by 
reason  of  the  shape,  may  be  valued  at  a  higher  rate  than  these  small  337 
parcels  are ;  if  that  is  your  idea,  with  a  view  of  determining  the  value 
of  the  property  by  subdivision,  because  this  method  of  subdivision  is 
not  of  advantage  to  the  property  at  all ;  it  does  not  add  in  any  way  to 
the  value  of  the  property,  if  that  is  what  you  want  to  get  at. 

I  valued  these  parcels  on  the  basis  of  what  I  considered  the  prop- 
erty worth  by  reason  of  sales,  perhaps,  in  as  near  as  you  could  get  to 
that  particular  property.  I  took  the  market  value  of  the  particular 
parcel,  I  take  what  would  be  considered  the  salable  value  of  that  prop- 
erty as  of  December  31,  1913,  and  when  I  valued  another  parcel,  I 
would  take  the  market  value  of  that  other  parcel,  then  to  get  the  total 
I  added  the  market  value  of  these  separate  parcels  together. 

Objection  to  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Baldwin. 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  OLNEY. 

I  made  my  valuation  upon  these  separate  parcels  with  the  idea 
that  the  land  was  subdivided  in  this  manner,  and  I  was  placing  a  value 
upon  the  land  as  subdivided.    I  do  not  think  that  the  sum  of  the  sub-       338 
divided  property  exceeds  the  value  of  it  as  a  whole  by  any  means.  My 
valuation  is  as  a  whole  arrived  at  by  the  total  of  these  various  parcels 
which  were  purchased  from  time  to  time.     The  only  reason  for  my 
valuing  the  parcels  has  been  simply  that  the  matter  has  been  sub- 
mitted to  me  in  that  way  with  the  parcels  shown  in  that  method.     I 
think  the  property  could  have  been  sold,  and  would  have  been  salable       339 
then  (December  31,  1913)  or  even  now  at  that  price  as  an  entirety. 

L  testified  in  regard  to  the  valuation  of  the  Lake  Merced  lands  in       340 
the  former  case  before  Judge  Farrington.    The  basis  of  my  valuation 
was  made  entirely  on  the  subdivision  proposition,  as  I  was  requested 
to  make  it,  but  not  as  a  whole.    I  have  not  made  any  of  these  valua- 

99 


Baldwin 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

tions  on  any  such  basis  as  that  at  all.  The  valuation  was  formerly 
made  on  what  the  property  would  retail  for.  The  total  retail  selling 
price  of  the  land.  I  did  not  subtract  the  cost  of  subdivision,  surveys, 
laying  out  streets  and  so  on.  I  had  no  instructions  to  do  that.  Those 
costs  were  to  be  ascertained,  and  were  to  be  submitted  by  the  engineers. 
341  Argument  by  Steinhart  against  the  admission  of  Mr.  Baldwin's 

testimony.    Objection  made  and  overruled. 

343  DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  OLNEY. 

Regarding  parcel  No.  2,  appearing  on  maps  2  and  3,  I  have  my 
notes  in  regard  to  its  character.  The  only  thing  is  that  my  description 
of  each  parcel,  I  have  already  explained,  in  some  instances,  takes  in 
the  whole  parcel,  and  only  a  portion  of  it  may  be  included  in  the  ap- 
praisal. The  acreages  to  which  I  will  testify  are  the  acreages  outside 
of  the  reservoir  sites.  Parcel  No.  2,  on  maps  2  and  3,  20.40  acres.  That 
acreage  is  wholly  watershed.  It  was  given  me  by  the  company  as 
watershed  land.  I  value  it  at  $50  an  acre,  $1,020.  The  whole  parcel 
contains  40  acres,  about  one-half  of  it  in  Pilarcitos  Reservoir,  the  other 
half  on  east  slope  of  saddle  between  Fifield  Ridge  and  Cahill  Ridge. 
Quite  steep.  These  two  pieces  connected  by  strip  running  over  end 
of  Cahill  Ridge.  Elevation  runs  from  700  to  1000  feet.  I  place  a  valu- 
ation of  $50  an  acre  on  that.  Map  3,  parcel  3,  41.75  acres,  at  $60  an 
acre,  $2,505.  East  of  Scarper  Peak,  and  north  of  Ox  Hill.  Very  steep, 

344  heavily  wooded,  ravine  runs  northeast  through  piece.    Both  sides  slope, 
steep  and  wooded.    Elevation,  700  to  1300  feet.    Map  3,  parcel  4,  4 
acres,  $50  an  acre,  $200.     There  are  two  pieces.     One  piece  on  east 
slope  of  north  end  of  Cahill  Ridge  steep.     Second  piece  half  down 
easterly  slope  to  Sawyer  Ridge,  very  steep  and  rugged.     Constitutes 
the  two  portals  to  Pilarcitos  Tunnel.    Map  3,  parcel  5,  23.60  acres,  at 
$60  an  acre,  $1,416.     On  the  west  slope  of  Cahill  Ridge,  very  steep, 
about  half  of  it  in  Pilarcitos  Reservoir.     Elevation,  700  to  900  feet. 
There  are  23.60  acres  in  the  watershed,  and  there  are  forty  acres  in 
the  whole  piece.    Parcel  5-1,  is  on  the  west  slope  of  the  north  end  of 
Cahill  Ridge.     Includes  saddle  between   Cahill  and  Fifield  Ridge. 
Fronts  on  east  arm  of  Pilarcitos  Reservoir.    Very  steep  except  saddle. 
Elevation,  700  to  900  feet.    It  is  partly  in  the  reservoir.    It  is  on  the 
east  side  of  Pilarcitos  just  at  the  north  edge  of  the  map.     This  last 
piece  5-1  contains  28.33  acres  at  $90,  $2,945.70.    Parcel  5-2  overlaps 
2  and  3.    Runs  part  on  one  map  and  part  on  the  other.    It  is  2852.82 
acres  in  watershed,  at  $100  an  acre,  $285,282.     It  includes  most  of 
Pilarcitos  beautifully  wooded  canyon,  running  from  top  of  Cahill 
Ridge  on  east,  including  Scarper  Peak  and  top  of  Montara  Mountains 
on  west  side  of  valley.     South  end  of  this  piece  is  quite  steep  and 
rugged.     Central  part  not  so  steep,  with  several  prominent  knolls. 
Top  of  Montara  Mountains  nearly  level.     The  north  end  of  piece  in- 
cludes large  part  of  Pilarcitos  Reservoir,  with  slopes  on  both  sides. 

100 


Baldwin 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

The  Cahill  Eidge  is  a  ridge  between  San  Mateo  Creek  on  the  east  and       345 
Pilarcitos  Creek  on  the  west. 

Map  3,  parcel  6,  80  acres  at  $50,  $4,000.  North  slope  of  Ox  Hill. 
Quite  steep  on  sides,  not  so  steep  in  center.  Elevation,  900  to  1500 
feet. 

Map  2,  parcel  7,  160.40  acres,  at  $40  per  acre,  $6,416.  East  end 
of  Whiting  Ridge,  including  north  slope,  which  is  quite  steep  and 
rugged,  and  south  slope  which  is  not  so  steep. 

Map  2,  parcel  8,  160  acres  at  $30  an  acre,  $4,800.  Whiting 
Eidge  runs  north-easterly  through  this  ridge;  both  slopes  quite  steep 
and  cut  up  with  ravines.  Elevation  from  800  to  1200  feet. 

Map  2,  parcel  9,  58.25  acres,  at  $20  an  acre,  $1,165.  Part  of  top 
of  Montara  Mountains  and  its  northerly  slope  which  is  quite  steep. 
Elevation  from  1200  to  1600  feet. 

Map  2,  parcel  12,  102.79  acres,  at  $100  an  acre,  $10,279.  That 
portion  is  in  the  bed  of  the  reservoir,  prominent  circular  knoll  which 
is  the  spur  of  the  Sweeney  Eidge,  with  uniform  steep  slopes.  Includes 
part  of  San  Andres  Lake.  Elevation  from  400  to  900  feet.  The  dif- 
ference between  102.79  acres  and  181.09  acres  is  in  the  reservoir.  In 
each  case  where  that  comes  in  I  have  not  appraised  the  portion  that 
is  in  the  reservoir. 

Maps  2  and  3,  parcel  13,  are  in  three  pieces.  332.74  acres,  at  $100 
an  acre,  $33,274.  15.15  acres  at  $175,  $2651.25.  27.41  acres  at  $200 
an  acre,  $5482.  By  reference  to  the  map  on  Exhibit  8,  parcel  13  is 
composed  of  three  tracts,  and  one  of  those  tracts  contains  a  water-  346 
shed  of  332.74  acres.  The  parcel  on  the  map  referred  to  is  the  one 
marked  13  with  the  acreage  underneath  of  369.49  acres.  This  is  what 
is  left  of  that,  outside  of  the  reservoir.  The  second  parcel,  15.15  acres 
is  what  is  left  of  the  piece  that  contained  59.95  acres,  and  is  on  the 
westerly  end  of  San  Andres  Lake.  The  other  piece  of  27.41  acres  is 
-what  is  left  of  the  102.61  acre  piece. 

Map  2,  parcel  14,  175.26  acres,  at  $125  an  acre,  $21,907.50.  This 
is  a  portion  of  a  larger  tract  containing  234.56  acres  on  the  easterly 
slope  of  northerly  end  of  Sawyer  Eidge.  Three  prominent  points,  the 
slopes  of  which  are  steep.  Some  live  oak  and  madrones,  or  manzanitas. 
Includes  part  of  San  Andres  Lake  and  dam;  elevation  from  500  to 
•900  feet. 

Map  2,  parcel  15,  143.35  acres,  at  $300  an  acre,  $43,005 ;  part  of 
the  tract  containing  153.75  acres  on  westerly  slope  of  northerly  end 
of  Buri  Buri  Eidge.  Includes  part  of  San  Andres  Lake.  Gentle 
slopes.  Fine  sites  for  villas.  Fine  view  of  bay  from  top  of  ridge. 
^Keeper's  cottage  surrounded  by  pines  and  eucalyptus  trees.  347 

Map  2,  parcel  16,  67.61  acres,  at  $300  an  acre,  $20,283.  A  portion 
of  tract  containing  96.11  acres  at  south  end  of  San  Andres  Lake.  Con- 
tains some  of  the  meadow  land  below  the  dam,  and  westerly  slope  of 
Buri  Buri  Eidge.  This  is  a  mistake,  dam  and  keeper's  cottage — the 

101 


Baldwin 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

cottage  is  on  the  tract  that  I  described  last.  This  is  another  keeper's 
cottage.  There  is  one  at  the  upper  end,  and  one  down  at  the  lower 
end. 

Map  2,  parcel  17,  17.39  acres,  at  $300  an  acre,  $5217.  It  is  part 
of  tract  containing  31.69  acres;  takes  in  top  of  Buri  Buri  Ridge, 
which  is  level  on  top.  Westerly  slope  to  San  Andres  Lake.  About 
one-half  the  piece  in  lake.  Elevation  about  500  feet. 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  GREENE. 

The  amount  of  watershed  land  in  my  total,  17.39  acres,  at  $300, 
$5,217. 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  OLNEY. 

Map  2,  parcel  18,  30.19  acres,  at  $300  an  acre,  $9,057.  There 
are  two  pieces  in  18,  Nos.  1  and  2.  The  first  piece  of  30.19  acres  is  a 
portion  of  the  52.35  acre  piece  on  the  easterly  side  of  San  Andres 
Lake,  and  the  westerly  slope  of  the  Buri  Buri  Ridge;  that  is  $300 
an  acre.  The  other  is  53.36  acres,  and  is  part  of  the  tract  containing 
66.90  acres,  at  the  northerly  arm  of  the  San  Andres  Lake;  that  is 
348  valued  at  $250  an  acre,  making  $13,340. 

Map  2,  parcel  19,  of  43.12  acres,  at  $300  per  acre,  $12,936 ;  that  is 
a  portion  of  the  tract  containing  66.92  acres,  and  runs  from  the  top  of 
Buri  Buri  Ridge  down  gentle  western  slope,  composed  of  two  knolls 
to  San  Andres  Lake,  which  comprises  about  half  of  the  piece.  Ele- 
vation about  500  feet. 

Map  2,  parcel  20,  of  16.90  acres,  at  $300  an  acre,  $5,070.  Portion 
of  the  tract  containing  36.60  acres.  It  runs  from  top  of  Buri  Buri 
Ridge  down  gentle  western  slope  of  San  Andres  Lake,  which  covers 
about  two-thirds  of  the  piece. 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  GREENE. 

The  acreage  of  the  watershed  in  parcel  20  is  16.90  acres. 

Map  2,  parcel  21,  of  20.72  acres,  at  $300  an  acre,  $6,216.  A  por- 
tion of  tract  containing  34.52  acres,  running  from  the  top  of  the 
Buri  Buri  Ridge,  and  steep  western  slope  to  San  Andres  Lake,  which 
covers  about  one-half  of  the  piece. 

Map  3,  parcel  25,  of  27.23  acres,  at  $25  an  acre,  $680.75.  Very 
steep  on  western  slope  of  the  Cahill  Ridge.  Elevation  from  400  to  I 
think  1000  feet. 

Map  3,  parcel  27,  of  67.49  acres,  at  $30  an  acre,  $2024.70.  Those 
are  six  small  triangular  pieces  just  over  the  top  of  Cahill  Ridge  on 
the  western  slope.  Very  steep.  They  are  little  pieces  bought  to 
square  up  the  ownership. 

349  Map  2,  parcel  28,  of  396.16  acres,  at  $25  an  acre,  $9,904.    Top 

of  Montara  Mountains  running  east  and  west;  very  badly  cut  up, 

102 


Baldwin 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

and  spur  running  north-easterly,  the  slopes  of  which  are  steep  and 
cut  up  with  ravines;  elevation  1100  to  1600  feet. 

Map  3,  parcel  29,  of  824.56  acres,  at  $30  an  acre,  $24,736.80. 
Basin  between  Montara  Mountains  and  Coral  de  Tierra  and  ridge 
adjoining  these  two  ranges ;  steep  slopes  cut  up  with  many  wooded 
ravines. 

Map  3,  parcel  33,  of  153.50  acres,  at  $30  an  acre,  $4605.  East 
slope  of  Coral  De  Tierra  including  part  of  Lock's  Creek,  nearly  all 
steep. 

Map  2,  parcel  34,  of  58.84  acres,  at  $20  an  acre,  $1176.80.  Top 
of  Montara  Mountains  and  very  steep  slope  both  north  and  south. 
Elevation  1200  to  1600  feet. 

Map  3,  parcel  36,  of  103.14  acres,  at  $500  an  acre,  $51,570.  Spur 
at  northerly  end  of  Pulgas  Ridge.  Northerly  slope  very  precipitous 
to  San  Mateo  Creek.  Westerly  slope  to  Crystal  Springs  Lake.  In- 
cludes part  of  the  lake.  Fine  site.  Wooded  knolls.  Elevation  200 
to  500  feet. 

Map  4,  parcel  37,  of  350.43  acres,  at  $175  an  acre,  $61,325.25. 
Part  of  a  tract  that  contained  516.43  acres.  On  the  westerly  and 
south-westerly  slopes  of  Pulgas  Ridge,  sloping  gently  at  top  and 
bottom  and  steep  between.  Includes  part  of  Crystal  Springs  Lake. 
Elevation  from  300  to  500  feet. 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  OLNEY. 

Referring  to  parcel  36;  it  is  at  the  southerly  end  of  the  dam. 
It  is  to  my  mind  the  finest  piece  of  property  of  the  whole  tract. 

Map  3,  parcel  38,  of  23.82  acres,  at  $200  an  acre,  $4764.    Por- 
tion of  the  tract  containing  95.14  acres,  foot  of  spur  on  easterly  spur       350 
of  Cahill  Ridge,  gently  sloping  to  Crystal  Springs  Lake,  which  com- 
prises about  three-quarters  of  this  piece. 

Map  3,  parcel  39,  of  2094.05  acres,  at  $150  an  acre,  $314,107.50. 
Portion  of  a  tract  containing  2162.25  acres.  Sawyer  Camp  site  in 
northeast  corner.  Beautifully  wooded.  The  southerly  half  of  Sawyer 
Ridge  comparatively  flat  on  top,  both  east  and  west  slope  quite  steep. 
Includes  arm  of  Crystal  Springs  Lake. 

Map  3,  parcel  40,  of  9.33  acres,  at  $125  per  acre,  $1166.25.  Por- 
tion of  tract  containing  13.23  acres.  Spur  on  the  east  slope  of  Sawyer 
Ridge.  Includes  part  of  Crystal  Springs  Lake.  Elevation  from 
300  to  700  feet. 

Map  3,  parcel  41,  of  42.45  acres,  at  $150  an  acre,  $6367.50.  Por- 
tion of  tract  containing  44.95  acres  on  the  easterly  slope  of  Sawyer 
Ridge,  sloping  toward  lake.  Includes  small  part  of  Crystal  Springs 
Lake.  Elevation  300  to  800  feet. 

Map  2,  parcel  42,  of  22.38  acres,  at  $300  per  acre,  $6714.  Top 
of  Buri  Buri  Ridge  and  west  slope,  level  land  at  bottom  below  San 
Andres  dam.  Elevation  400  to  600  feet.  There  are  two  pieces.  One 

103 


Baldwin 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

is  312.69  acres,  and  the  other  80  acres,  making  391.69  acres.  There 
is  a  discrepancy  of  1  acre  in  the  description  and  in  the  map,  but  I 
think  391.69  is  correct.  The  two  pieces  have  been  valued  by  me  at 
$40  an  acre,  making  $15,667.60.  The  first  portion  of  the  property, 
312.69  acres,  is  on  the  northerly  end  of  Fifield  Ridge,  and  very  steep 
ravine  on  its  west  slope ;  east  slope  not  so  steep  to  San  Mateo  Creek. 
Part  of  Sweeney  Ridge  with  steep  western  slope,  and  precipitous 

351  eastern  ridge  cut  up  with  two  big  ravines.     Elevation  500  to  1200 
feet. 

The  80  acres  is  at  the  southerly  and  south-westerly  slope  of 
Fifield  Ridge;  elevation  400  to  800  feet. 

Map  4,  parcel  44,  of  9.46  acres,  at  $200  an  acre,  $1892.  Portion 
of  a  tract  of  land  containing  21.86  acres.  Island  in  upper  Crystal 
Springs  Lake,  and  level  bottom  land,  a  portion  of  which  is  now  in 
the  lake. 

Map  4,  parcel  45,  of  147.47  acres,  at  $250  an  acre,  $36,867.50. 
Portion  of  tract  containing  154.17  acres,  foot  of  spur  on  north- 
easterly slope  of  Cahill  Ridge,  very  gentle  slope. 

Map  4,  parcel  46,  of  150.43  acres,  at  $200  an  acre,  $30,086.  Por- 
tion of  tract  containing  294.53  acres.  Foot  of  north-east  slope  of 
Cahill  Ridge.  Gently  sloping,  includes  part  of  upper  Crystal  Springs 
Lake. 

Map  4,  parcel  47,  of  49.25  acres,  at  $200  an  acre,  $9850.  Portion 
of  tract  containing  70.75  acres.  Two  prominent  knolls  at  foot  of 
northeast  slope  of  Cahill  Ridge,  sloping  gently  to  Crystal  Springs 
Lake. 

Map  4,  parcel  48,  of  925.88  acres,  at  $175  an  acre,  $162,029.  Part 
of  tract  containing  1161.78  acres.  Large  level  knoll  near  top  of 
Pulgas  Ridge,  and  gentle  west  slope  to  upper  Crystal  Springs  Lake 
on  the  southern  end.  On  northerly  end  several  prominent  knolls 
with  steep  slope.  Cottage  near  center  on  west  slope.  Elevation  300 
to  700  feet. 

Map  4,  parcel  49,  of  643.90  acres,  at  $125  an  acre,  $80,487.50. 
Portion  of  tract  containing  659.80  acres.  Northeast  slope  of  Cahill 

352  Ridge,  gently  sloping  at  the  top;  level  meadow  land  at  the  foot, 
but  steep  side  hill  with  deep  ravine  between.    Elevation  300  to  1800 
feet. 

Map  4,  parcel  50,  of  310.90  acres,  at  $200  per  acre,  $62,180. 
Portion  of  tract  containing  481.80  acres.  Level  bottom  land  and  foot 
of  northeast  slope  of  Cahill  Ridge  and  part  of  upper  Crystal  Springs 
Lake.  Elevation  300  to  600  feet. 

Map  2,  parcel  51,  contains  17.52  acres,  at  $300  per  acre,  $5256. 
Bottom  land  at  northerly  end  of  San  Andres  Lake. 

Map  2,  parcel  52,  contains  1.03  acres,  at  $200  an  acre,  $206. 
Mouth  of  ravine  northerly  slope  of  end  of  Sawyer  Ridge,  fronting 
on  San  Andres  Lake.  Gentle  slope. 

104 


Baldwin 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

Map  2,  parcel  53,  contains  5.18  acres,  at  $300  an  acre,  $1554. 
Gentle  slope  on  east  side  of  north  end  of  San  Andres  Lake. 

Map  4,  parcel  54,  contains  64.32  acres,  at  $300  an  acre,  $19,296. 
Portion  of  tract  containing  104.22  acres.  On  the  westerly  slope 
of  Pulgas  Ridge.  Gently  sloping  at  top,  then  steep  to  Crystal  Springs 
Lake,  which  comprises  one-third  of  the  piece. 

Map  4,  parcel  55,  of  74.24  acres,  at  $200  an  acre,-  $14,848.  Por- 
tion of  a  tract  containing  98.94  acres.  Bottom  land  on  westerly  side 
of  southerly  end  of  upper  Crystal  Springs  Lake. 

Map  3,  parcel  59,  of  6.18  acres,  at  $200  an  acre,  $1236.  Portion 
of  a  parcel  containing  15.68  acres.  Steep  easterly  slope  of  southerly 
end  of  Sawyer  Ridge.  Includes  part  of  Crystal  Springs  Lake. 

Map  3,  parcel  60,  of  243.80  acres,  at  $40  an  acre,  $9752.  Ox  Hill 
with  slope  easterly  and  southerly.  Elevation  from  700  to  1600  feet. 

Map  3,  parcel  62,  of  43.17  acres,  at  $150  an  acre,  $6475.50.  Front-       353 
ing  on  Crystal  Springs  road,  leading  to  San  Mateo.    Northerly  slope 
of  north  end  of  Pulgas  Ridge  and  mouth  of  Alms  House  Canyon. 
Very  steep. 

Maps  3  and  4,  parcel  68;  there  are  a  number  of  parcels  there. 
No.  1  is  40  acres,  at  $40  an  acre,  $1600.  This  is  on  map  4.  North- 
easterly slope  of  Cahill  Ridge.  Steep.  Elevation  500  to  1000  feet. 
No.  2  is  51.65  acres,  at  $70  an  acre,  $3615.50.  It  is  at  the  foot  of 
east  slope  of  Cahill  Ridge.  It  is  not  very  steep.  The  next  is  116.08 
acres,  at  $60  an  acre,  6964.80.  It  is  a  big  ravine  on  east  slope  of 
Cahill  Ridge.  Steep  slope.  The  rest  of  parcel  68  is  what  is  left  of 
the  watershed  lands  of  these  other  parcels,  the  balance  contains 
622.04  acres.  They  are  the  slope  of  the  Crystal  Springs  Lake,  but 
are  in  scattered  parcels.  That  is  they  are  the  remnants  of  the  various 
portions  of  these  other  four  tracts.  I  put  them  in  at  the  uniform 
price  of  $125  an  acre,  $77,755.  I  have  not  the  segregated  amounts 
of  those  various  parcels.  Mr.  Sharon  gave  me  the  total  of  what 
was  left.  I  think  they  have  that  in  the  office;  I  have  not  got  it.  I 
do  not  think  there  is  any  material  difference  in  the  land.  It  is  all 
about  the  same.  Those  that  I  value  at  $125  an  acre  would  come  a  por- 
tion in  No.  5,  and  a  portion  in  No.  6.  354 

The  first  parcel  of  68,  containing  40  acres,  appears  on  map  4, 
almost  in  the  middle  of  the  map,  and  on  that  I  have  placed  a  valua- 
tion of  $40  an  acre.  The  next  piece  containing  51.65  acres,  lies  a 
quarter  of  a  mile  to  the  east,  and  on  that  I  have  placed  a  valuation 
of  $70  an  acre,  and  that  runs  down  to  the  main  road  running  from 
Burns'  store.  The  third  piece,  containing  116.08  acres,  is  almost  due 
north  of  the  first  piece  containing  40  acres.  It  is  at  the  junction  of 
the  IJalf  Moon  Bay  road  and  the  road  that  runs  up  to  Redwood  Park, 
the  Ridge  Road,  and  that  I  have  valued  at  $60  an  acre. 

Next  I  have  a  piece  containing  622.04  acres,  made  up  of  several 
different  pieces.  It  comprises  first,  the  piece  on  the  map  entitled 

105 


Baldwin 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

"68"  with  an  acreage  of  196  and  some  odd  acres,  a  little  to  the 

355  north-east  or  about  due  north  of  the  116  acre  piece.    That  200  acres 
shown  immediately  to  the  north  of  the  last  mentioned  piece  is  a  mis- 
take, and  should  not  be  on  there.    This  is  562.22  acres,  and  it  takes 
in  the  piece  that  is  marked  the  200  acres;  that  200  acre  piece  is  a 
mistake,  and  is  really  a  part  of  the  562  acre  tract.     The  562  acre 
tract  appears  in  part  on  map  3.     These  properties  lie  to  the  north 
of  the  Half  Moon  Bay  road,  and  on  the  easterly  slope  of  the  Crystal 
Springs  reservoir;  the  northerly  portion  of  the  property  is  imme- 
diately across  the  way  from  the  Crystal  Springs  dam. 

Map  3,  parcel  72,  containing  8.80  acres,  at  $300  an  acre,  $2640. 
That  is  a  portion  of  a  tract  containing  32.80  acres.  Long  strip  at 
north  end  of  Crystal  Springs  Lake. 

Map  3,  parcel  73,  contains  276.45  acres,  at  $400  an  acre,  $110,580. 
Portion  of  a  tract  containing  284.55  acres.  Westerly  slope  of  Buri 
Buri  Ridge.  Steep  slope  much  cut  up  with  small  ravines.  Level 
on  top. 

Map  3,  parcel  89,  of  47.06  acres,  at  $200  an  acre,  $9412.  The 
south  end  of  Sawyer  Eidge,  steep  slopes  to  the  east  and  south. 

Map  3,  parcel  90,  of  856.10  acres,  at  $400  an  acre,  $342,440.  Part 
of  tract  containing  981.50  acres.  Large  part  practically  level  on  top 

356  of  Buri  Buri  Ridge,  and  the  steep  southwest  slope  to  the  Crystal 
Springs  Lake,  including  part  thereof,  and  very  precipitous  slope  to 
San  Mateo  Creek. 

Map  3,  parcel  91,  of  28.55  acres,  at  $150,  $4282.50.  The  north 
slope  of  Pulgas  Ridge,  level  on  top,  quite  steep  below. 

Map  3,  parcel  92,  of  31.31  acres,  at  $200  an  acre,  $6262.  Part 
of  tract  containing  80.01  acres.  Foot  of  steep  east  slope  of  Cahill 
Ridge,  and  gently  sloping  end  of  Sawyer  Ridge,  with  Crystal  Springs 
Lake  in  between. 

Map  3,  parcel  94,  containing  4.95  acres,  at  $200  an  acre,  $990. 
Nearly  all  in  Crystal  Springs  Lake.  It  is  part  of  a  tract  containing 
14.45  acres — nearly  all  in  Crystal  Springs  Lake. 

Map  4,  parcel  96,  12.20  acres,  at  $200  an  acre,  $2440.  Part  of 
a  tract  containing  23.65  acres.  Foot  of  steep  east  slope  of  Cahill 
Ridge  and  Crystal  Springs  Lake. 

Map  3,  parcel  97,  containing  68.09  acres,  at  $150  an  acre,  $10,- 
213.50.  Portion  of  the  tract  containing  86.79  acres.  On  the  east 
slope  of  Sawyer  Ridge,  two  prominent  knolls  with  a  ravine  between. 
Includes  part  of  Crystal  Springs  Lake. 

Map  2,  parcel  101,  containing  240  acres,  $25  an  acre,  $6,000. 
Top  of  Montara  Mountains,  very  steep  slopes. 

Map  2,  parcel  102,  160  acres  at  $40  an  acre,  $6,400.  Top  of  the 
Fifield  Ridge,  with  a  spur  to  west.  Very  steep  slope ;  elevation  700 
to  1300  feet. 

106 


SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

Map  2,  parcel  104,  327.90  acres,  at  $50  an  acre,  $16,395.  Junc- 
tion of  Whiting  and  Fifield  Ridge.  Very  steep,  rugged  slopes  to 
north  and  east.  Steep  slopes  to  southeast.  Elevation  900  to  1400 
feet. 

Map  2,  parcel  106,  295  acres,  at  $100  an  acre,  $29,590.  Portion  of 
a  tract  containing  320  acres.  Southerly  half  of  Spring  Valley  Ridge,  357 
with  small  part  of  the  level  top  of  Fifield  Ridge.  Precipitous  slopes 
between.  On  the  southwest  slope  of  Spring  Valley  Ridge.  Steep  and 
rough  to  Pilarcitos  Lake.  Foot  of  steep  slope  of  Montara  Mount- 
ains in  southwest  corner  of  piece. 

Map  3,  parcel  101,  2.10  acres,  at  $200  an  acre,  $420.  Portion  of 
tract  containing  3  acres.  East  slope  of  Sawyer  Ridge.  Upper  half 
steep.  Lower  half  not  steep.  Includes  portion  of  Crystal  Springs 
Lake. 

Map  4,  parcel  122,  117.48  acres,  at  $75  an  acre,  $8,811.  It  is  a 
part  of  the  tract  containing  118.58  acres  on  the  east  slope  of  Cahill 
Ridge.  Steep.  Elevation  from  400  to  1100  feet. 

Map  3,  parcel  124,  165  acres,  at  $60  an  acre,  $9,900.  East  of 
Scarper  Peak.  Fine  growth  of  firs.  Ravine  running  northerly 
through  east  side  of  this  peak.  Elevation  800  to  1700  feet. 

Map  3,  parcel  128,  47.93  acres,  at  $30  an  acre,  $1,437.90.  That 
is  in  two  parcels;  one  of  40  acres  south  of  Scarper  Peak  at  the  top 
of  the  ridge.  Slopes  to  the  east  and  west.  The  other  is  7.93  acres 
near  the  top  of  Coral  De  Tierra.  Not  very  steep. 

Map  2,  parcel  130,  390.04  acres,  at  $50  an  acre,  $19,502.  At  the 
north  end  of  Sawyer  Ridge.  Slopes  to  northeast  and  somewhat 
cut  up  with  many  small  ravines.  Slopes  to  the  west  to  San  Mateo 
Creek.  On  the  west  side  of  this  piece  foot  of  slope  of  Fifield  Ridge 
quite  steep. 

Map  4,  parcel  132,  505.75  acres,  at  $70  an  acre,  $35,402.50.  These 
are  two  pieces.  One  piece  containing  340  acres,  and  the  other  piece 
containing  165.75  acres.  The  340  acre  piece  is  on  the  northeast 
slope  of  the  Cahill  Ridge.  Side  hill  only.  Elevation  500  to  1400 
feet.  The  165.75  acres  piece  is  on  the  east  slope  of  the  Cahill  Ridge, 
steep  on  northerly  end,  with  a  large  ravine.  South  end  not  so  358 
steep.  Elevation  500  to  1000  feet.  The  same  map,  the  same  number, 
160  acres,  at  $125  an  acre,  $20,000.  Foot  of  east  slope  of  Cahill 
Ridge.  Prominent  knoll,  gently  sloping,  level  at  the  bottom. 

Map  4,  parcel  134,  200.92  acres,  at  $70  an  acre,  $14,064.40.  On 
northerly  slope  of  Cahill  Ridge.  Gentle  slope  on  top.  Southern  part 
steep.  Elevation  from  500  to  1300  feet. 

Map  3,  parcel  138,  320  acres  at  $30  an  acre,  $9,600.  Top  of  spur 
from  Ox  Hill  Ridge.  I  have  only  one  piece  there. 

Map  No.  2,  parcel  144,  containing  152.43  acres,  at  $250  an  acre, 
$38,107.50.  Ridge  between  Buri  Buri  and  Sweeney  Ridges.  Gentle 
slopes  on  top  and  on  each  side.  Elevation  500  to  700  feet. 

107 


SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

Map  2,  parcel  146,  15.89  acres,  at  $30  an  acre,  $476.70.  On  the 
southwest  slope  of  Fifield  Ridge.  Elevation  800  to  1000  feet. 

Map  2,  parcel  153,  1066.11  acres,  at  $100  an  acre,  $106,611.  Fi- 
field Ridge  gently  sloping  on  top.  East  slope  of  ridge  is  very  steep 
and  cut  up  with  very  small  ravines  to  San  Mateo  Creek.  Sawyer 
Ridge  slopes  steeply  to  the  west  with  three  ravines.  The  east  slope 
is  very  precipitous  and  rugged. 

Map  5,  parcel  164,  429.20  acres,  at  $175  an  acre,  $75,110.  On  the 
west  slope  of  the  Pulgas  Ridge.  Gently  sloping  on  top  with  two 
or  three  prominent  knolls.  Steep  side  slopes  and  large  flat  below. 
Elevation  400  to  700  feet.  Occasional  oaks  and  other  trees. 

359  Map  3,  parcel  182,  34.45  acres,  at  $150  an  acre,  $5167.50.    Very 
steep  east  slope  of  Sawyer  Ridge  from  the  edge  at  the  top  to  edge  of 
lake. 

Map  4,  parcel  191,  449.19  acres,  at  $100  an  acre,  $44,919.  North- 
east slope  of  Cahill  Ridge.  Steep  slopes,  flat  at  bottom.  Elevation 
400  to  1700  feet. 

Map  5,  parcel  194,  1059.07  acres,  at  $125  an  acre,  $132,483.75. 
Northeast  slope  of  Cahill  Ridge.  Very  prominent  point.  Steep 
slopes,  one-quarter  of  piece  gently  rolling  at  bottom.  Second  growth 
redwoods  on  westerly  portion.  Elevation  400  to  2000  feet. 

Map  5,  parcel  195,  503.30  acres,  at  $125  an  acre,  $62,912.50. 
Northeasterly  slope  of  Cahill  Ridge,  gently  sloping  on  top,  then 
very  steep  to  West  Union  Creek.  Gently  sloping  from  east  side  of 
creek.  Pretty  much  the  same  as  194. 

CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  STEINHART. 

I  have  not  valued  separately  the  portion  in  the  West  Union 
Watershed,  as  against  the  Crystal  Springs  watershed. 

Map  2,  parcel  196,  80  acres,  at  $40  an  acre,  $3200.  Top  of  Fifield 
Ridge,  very  steep  slopes  to  east  and  northeast  and  to  the  west. 

Map  4,  parcel  199,  50.53  acres,  at  $50  an  acre,  $2526.50.  Those 
are  triangular  pieces  on  top  of  Cahill  Ridge,  gently  sloping. 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  OLNEY. 

There  are  three  such  pieces,  and  I  have  lumped  them. 
Map  5,  parcel  202,  92.73  acres,  at  $100  an  acre,  $9273.    That  is 
No.  2  on  map  5,  the  southwest  slope  of  Pulgas  Ridge,  prominent  knoll 

360  in  center,  gently  sloping.    The  next  is  153.16  acres,  at  $150  an  acre, 
$22,974.     That  takes  in  the  two  pieces  there  combined,  one  piece 
of  92.75,  and  the  other  60.43.    I  am  not  sure  as  to  the  92.73  being  the 
most  southerly.    I  think  there  is  a  mistake  on  the  map.    The  com- 
bined area  of  what  is  left  is  153.16  acres,  and  I  put  it  in  at  $150  an 
acre.    That  makes  $22,974.    The  northerly  one  I  put  at  $100  an  acre; 
the  two  southerly  pieces  combined  I  put  at  $150  an  acre. 

108 


Baldwin 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

Map  5,  parcel  203,  32.54  acres,  at  $100  an  acre,  $3254.  The  de- 
scription of  that  is  the  southwest  slope  of  Pulgas  Ridge,  gently 
sloping.  There  is  a  bungalow  on  the  property. 

Map  5,  parcel  205,  314.30  acres,  at  $150  an  acre,  $47,145. 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  GREENE. 

Parcel  204  I  have  here.  It  is  the  Polhemus  Tract.  I  have  the 
description  here  but  it  is  eliminated  from  the  watershed  there. 

The  description  of  map  5,  parcel  205,  is  northeast  slope  of  Cahill       351 
Ridge.     Very  steep.     Prominent  point  and  big  ravine  opening  into 
West  Union  Creek,  well  wooded.    Ground  rises  less  steeply  to  the  east 
from  West  Union  Creek,  then  falls  gently  to  flat  below.    Old  vineyard 
on  east  slope. 

Map  5,  parcel  208,  156  acres,  at  $200  an  acre,  $31,200.  Ridge 
fairly  level  on  top.  Slopes  steeply  to  the  west  to  West  Union  Creek, 
and  gently  to  the  east  to  the  flat. 

Map  5,  parcel  210,  214  acres,  at  $150  an  acre,  $32,100.  Steep 
slope  northeasterly  from  top  of  Cahill  Ridge,  connected  by  a  narrow 
strip  to  piece  across  West  Union  Creek,  which  slopes  steeply  to  the  west 
and  the  east.  Old  vineyard  and  winery  on  east  slope. 

Map  5,  parcel  211,  346.10  acres,  at  $150  an  acre,  $51,915.  North- 
easterly slope  of  the  Cahill  Ridge.  Deep  ravine  into  West  Union 
Creek.  Ground  rises  steeply  to  ridge  on  the  east  of  West  Union 
Creek  and  then  falls  sharply  to  flat  below.  Well  timbered  on  slope 
toward  creek.  Old  vineyard  on  easterly  slopes. 

Map  5,  parcel  212,  10.23  acres,  at  $125  an  acre,  $1278.75.    That       362 
is  a  level  piece  of  land  at  the  intersection  of  the  roads,  leading  north  to 
the  Half  Moon  Bay  road,  and  the  other  road  running  west,  which  is 
known  as  Canada.    It  is  right  at  the  circle  where  the  road  diverges. 

Map  2,  parcel  218,  22.84  acres,  at  $300  an  acre,  $6852.  Portion 
of  a  tract  containing  34.74  acres  on  the  southwest  slope  from  Buri 
Buri  Ridge.  Big  ravine  flowing  south,  with  prominent  point  to  the 
west,  then  falling  steeply  to  San  Andres  Lake,  which  comprises  about 
half  the  piece. 

Phelps  Tract,  969.94  acres,  at  $125  an  acre,  $121,242.50. 

(Discussion  between  counsel  as  to  ownership  of  Phelps  Tract,  and 
of  conditions  surrounding  option  held  by  Spring  Valley  Water  Co.) 

Description  of  this  property:  it  extends  from  the  top  of  Pulgas        363 
Ridge,  westerly  to  near  the  center  of  the  lower  arm  of  upper  Crystal 
Springs  Reservoir,  immediately  south  of  parcel  48.    Land  rolling,  with 
occasional  groups  of  oak  trees.    Spring  Valley  Water  Co.  has  option 
to  purchase  this  property  on  basis  of  $100  per  acre. 

The  Master  here  suggests  that  to  supplement  Mr.  Baldwin's  tes- 
timony, counsel  for  Plaintiff  introduce  this  tabulation  of  values,  and 
have  him  testify  as  to  the  correctness  of  the  final  totals. 

109 


SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 
DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  OLNEY. 

I  did  not  know  that  there  are  two  totals,  one  excluding  the  Phelps 
363i/2  Tract,  $2,879,120.90,  and  the  other  including  the  Phelps  Tract,  $3,- 
000,363.40.  My  total  valuation,  excluding  the  Phelps  Tract,  is  within 
50  cents  of  the  figure  $2,879,120.90.  That  is  as  near  as  I  can  say.  I 
don't  know  whether  those  additions  are  correct,  or  whether  mine  are, 
but  it  is  one  or  the  other,  but  the  valuations  set  out  in  the  table  are 
a  correct  tabulation. 

Offered  in  evidence,  and  marked  "Plaintiff's  Exhibit  18". 

SEVENTH  HEARING.  JULY  21,  1915. 

Witness  A.  S.  BALDWIN. 

364-365  Telegrams  introduced  in  evidence  to  show  Geo.  W.  Reynolds  de- 

ceased April  24,  1914.  Decided  not  necessary  to  supplement  this 
showing  in  order  to  use  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Reynolds  given  in  the 
1903  case. 

365-366  Objection  to  introduction  of  "Exhibit  12-bb"  overruled,  and  the 

exhibit  admitted  in  evidence. 

Admission  of  "Exhibit  12-cc"  to  depend  upon  Mr.  Metcalf's 
testimony. 

Counsel  for  defendant  does  not  object  any  further  to  Reynolds 
matter. 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  OLNEY. 

367  I  have  prepared  a  tabulation  of  the  valuations  which  I  have  placed 
upon  the  watershed  lands  of  the  Crystal  Springs,  San  Andres  and 
Pilarcitos  Reservoirs,  in  which  these  lands  and  various  parcels  have 
been  segregated  in  accordance  with  the  value  per  acre.     That  is  a 
tabulation  which  you  now  show  me. 

Offered  and  received  in  evidence,  and  marked  "Plaintiff's  Ex- 

368  hibit!9". 

That  summary  includes  the  Phelps  tract;  the  difference  is  the 
value  of  the  Phelps  tract,  if  it  is  to  be  eliminated,  to  come  out  of  that. 

The  average  value  per  acre  of  these  watershed  lands  is  $130.55 
an  acre,  which  includes  the  Phelps  tract. 

These  watershed  lands  are  more  available  for  residential  pur- 
poses I  think,  than  for  general  farming  or  agriculture,  except  in 
certain  places ;  there  is  a  diversity  of  soil  naturally  throughout  a  large 
area,  some  bad,  some  not  so  bad,  and  some  very  good.  The  matter  of 
soil,  however,  from  my  experience  and  observation,  is  not  a  very 

369  essential  feature  or  element  in  disposing  of  properties  down  the  Pen- 
insula.    I  do  not  suppose  there  is  a  tract  of  land  being  sold,  or  that 
has  been  sold  from  San  Bruno  to  Woodside  that  would  produce  an 
income  for  any  purpose  on  what  is  the  intrinsic  and  salable  value  of 

110 


Baldwin 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

the  property,  with  very  few  exceptions.  Beyond  Woodside  is  bottom 
land  that  is  used  for  strawberries,  vegetable  purposes,  that  rents  for 
$25  or  $30  an  acre,  but  even  at  that  rental  it  would  not  pay  interest 
on  probably  $400  or  $500  an  acre  that  might  be  obtained  for  it.  The 
same  is  true  of  practically  all  of  these  22,000  or  23,000  acres  of  the 
water  company.  I  have  had  personal  experience  with  a  1200  acre 
tract  known  as  McDonough  Ranch  below  Portola,  that  can  hardly  be 
made  to  pay  expenses,  eliminating  the  special  use  to  which  it  has  been 
put,  the  raising  of  thoroughbred  horses,  and  yet  the  land  could  be 
sold,  I  think,  very  quickly  for  $150.00*  an  acre,  or  about  $180.000. 
Even  with  the  most  careful  farming  there,  I  do  not  believe  that  any 
more  than  expenses  could  be  made  out  of  it;  the  land  has  outgrown 
in  value  the  agricultural  use,  and  is  essentially  a  suburban  residential 
proposition. 

Referring  to  map,  Plaintiff's  exhibit  16,  and  Plaintiff's  exhibit  370 
17 :  I  valued  the  land  in  the  westerly  portion  of  that  property  at  very 
much  lower  rate  per  acre  than  the  land  on  the  easterly  part  of  it. 
There  are  farms  adjacent  to  all  the  land  there  in  the  westerly  portion 
of  the  tract,  used  partly  for  stock  and  partly  for  agriculture ;  a  large 
portion  of  that  land  on  the  top  of  what  is  known  as  Montara  Mount- 
ain, would  not  be  adaptable  at  the  present  time  for  anything  except 
stock  purposes.  Land  that  we  will  say  is  worth  $30  or  $40  an  acre; 
but  that  land  by  reason  of  its  connection  with  the  other  tract,  assum- 
ing that  the  tract  was  acquired  as  a  whole,  and  developed,  would 
naturally  feel  the  influence  of  the  development  of  that  portion  of  the 
property  that  would  be  nearest  to  transportation,  and  nearest  to  the 
present  line  of  development. 

There  are  thousands  of  acres  that  have  a  very  great  value  from  371 
a  scenic  point  of  view,  and  practically  all  of  it  is  within  accessible  dis- 
tance by  automobile  transportation  of  San  Francisco  for  suburban 
homes.  The  automobile  has  had  the  effect  within  the  last  ten  years 
of  bringing  into  the  market,  and  increasing  the  value  of  all  such  prop- 
erties very  considerable.  The  adjoining  lands  on  the  east  and  south 
sides  of  this  tract  (watershed  lands)  are  now,  to  a  very  large  extent, 
in  the  hands  of  wealthy  people  who  have  built  fine  homes ;  that  applies 
to  the  section  west  of  Burlingame  and  San  Mateo,  and  also  to  the 
southerly  portion  of  this  property,  by  reason  of  the  development  at 
Woodside. 

There  has  not  been  as  much  development  immediately  around       372 
Belmont  as  there  has  been  down  toward  Woodside  and  in  San  Mateo ; 
the  Beresford  Country  Club,  however,  have  a  very  fine  building  not 
far  from  Belmont,  and  that  property  comes  up  to  within  a  very  short 
distance  of  the  Spring  Valley  property. 

*This  was  stated  in  the  testimony  $150,000.     Corrected  in  Court  July  23, 
1915.     See  page  438. 

Ill 


SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

There  has  been  development  of  the  land  about  and  adjoining 
Redwood  City,  but  I  do  not  think  values  are  as  high  there,  nor  has  the 
development  been  as  great  immediately  around  Redwood  as  higher  up. 
There  have  been  several  very  pretentious  homes  built  in  the  Hooper 
tract.  George  Oxnard  lives  there,  and  also  George  Lent. 

(Discussion  between  counsel  and  the  Master  as  to  Mr.  Bald- 

375  win's  valuation  placed  on  lands  outside  of  the  watershed;  also  as  to 
the  inclusion  of  such  lands  as  the  Locks  Creek  Lands  and  Howard 
tract.) 

Map  showing  certain  pipe  lines  and  lands  of  the  Spring  Valley 
Water  Co.,  in  the  northern  part  of  San  Mateo  County,  offered  in  evi- 
dence, and  marked  "Plaintiff's  Exhibit  20". 

I  made  a  valuation  of  the  property  designated  No.  87,  and  which 
appears  on  map  9,  of  "Exhibit  8".  It  is  a  level  piece  of  land,  sandy 
soil  in  the  northern  part  of  San  Mateo  County,  in  the  line  of  the 
Valencia  Street  branch  of  the  Southern  Pacific  Railroad,  and  on  the 
east  side  of  the  Junipero  Serra  Boulevard.  It  is  mostly  in  San  Mateo 
County,  but  with  a  narrow  strip  in  San  Francisco  County.  The 
market  value  of  this  property  on  December  31,  1913,  was  $3,000  per 
acre  for  the  7.72  acres,  making  $23,160.  There  is  a  spur  track  that 

376  runs  through  the  property. 

Questioned  by  Master. 

My  valuation  included  the  little  strip  in  San  Francisco  also.  The 
spur  track  that  crosses  that  property  leads  to  the  Ocean  View  pumping 
station,  as  I  understand,  and  it  is  quite  necessary  in  supplying  fuel  oil 
and  material.  The  spur  track  which  leaves  the  Southern  Pacific  line 
and  runs  across  the  property  leads,  as  far  as  my  knowledge  of  the 
matter  is  concerned,  to  the  Ocean  View  pumping  station  on  the  west- 
erly side  of  the  Junipero  Serra  Boulevard,  and  I  believe  to  the  pump- 

377  ing  station  down  near  the  lake. 

Referring  to  parcels  118,  179  and  187,  appearing  on  map  8,  I 
valued  the  combined  area  in  the  three  parcels,  containing  1.471  acres 
at  $3,000  per  acre,  making  $4413.  That  is  on  the  upper  righthand 
corner  of  map  8,  and  is  property  that  runs  partly  in  San  Francisco, 
and  partly  in  San  Mateo  County,  Hillcrest  and  Daly  Hill  Reservoir 
property.  I  have  placed  a  valuation  on  parcel  168*  on  map  9.  The 
tract  contains  59.783  acres  at  $1500  per  acre,  $89,674.  It  is  a  level 

378  piece  of  land;  the  Southern  Pacific  Railroad  runs  along  the  westerly 
side  of  it;  the  county  road  runs  through  the  center,  and  it  is  near 
South  San  Francisco,  which  is  quite  an  industrial  section. 

Parcel  127,  map  8,  I  placed  a  value  upon.  It  is  a  strip  between 
county  road  and  Southern  Pacific  Railroad  near  Baden,  8.847  acres, 
at  $1,000  per  acre,  $8847.  It  is  a  level  piece  of  land  lying  between 
the  county  road  and  the  Southern  Pacific  Railroad.  The  San  Andres 
pipe  line  extends  through  the  tract.  The  southerly  portion  of  the 

*This  was  written  188  in  transcript.     Corrected  in  Court  July  23,  1915. 
112 


Baldwin 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

property  is  subject  to  overflow  during  some  of  the  winter  months, 
otherwise,  the  tract  is  valuable  as  a  truck  garden,  and  could  doubtless 
be  disposed  of  to  Italian  or  Portuguese  gardeners.  The  same  may  be 
said  of  parcels  214,  215  and  216,  containing  3.84  acres,  which  I  valued 
at  $1500  per  acre,  $5,760.  These  tracts  all  have  a  frontage  on  the 
county  road,  also  the  railroad,  and  are  near  the  tracks  of  the  United 
Kailroad. 

(By  counsel:  Tract  127  is  the  tract  appearing  on  exhibit  20  at  the 
southeast  corner  of  the  map,  and  between  the  tracks  of  the  United 
Railroads  and  the  Southern  Pacific,  and  crossed  by  the  San  Andres  379 
pipe  line.  Tracts  214,  215  and  216  comprise  the  property  imme- 
diately to  the  northwest  of  127,  and  they  are  all  traversed  by  the  pipe 
line,  and  are  not  used,  so  far  as  I  have  been  informed,  for  water  pro- 
ducing purposes,  but  they  are  included  in  the  condemnation  suit.f) 

Map  9,  parcel  32,  lot  1,  block  17,  School  House  Extension  Home- 
stead, fronting  49  feet  on  Washington  Street,  and  139  feet  on  Hill 
Street.  This  property  is  just  across  the  way  from  Colma  Station,  and 
close  to  the  San  Pedro  Road,  which  gives  it  a  somewhat  more  than 
normal  value.  The  valuation  placed  on  it  by  me  is  $1500. 

Map  9,  parcel  186,  lot  A,  Castle  tract,  northeast  corner  of  Price 
St.  and  County  Road,  fronting  129  ft.  9  in.  on  the  county  road,  104 
ft.  4  in.  on  Price  Street,  and  70  ft.  in  depth  on  the  north  line.  It 
has,  in  my  opinion,  a  value  of  $20  per  foot  for  the  county  road  front- 
age, giving  it  a  value  of  $2,595. 

Map  9,  parcel  192,  portions  of  lots  11,  12,  13  and  14,  block  2, 
Visitacion,  40  by  60  ft.,  $500.    That  size  that  I  gave  you  of  40  by  60,       380 
should  be  40  by  160.    It  is  40  ft.  on  a  straight  line,  and  48  feet  on  the 
diagonal. 

Parcel  35,  map  8,  of  "Exhibit  8":  The  total  valuation  on  all  of 
the  lots  in  the  Abbey  Homestead,  is  $2500,  divided  as  follows:  Lot  3, 
block  32,  size  100  by  100,  $600.  Lot  3,  block  156,*  size  100  by  100, 
$250.  Lot  8,  block  171,  size  100  by  100,  $250.  Lot  30  by  100  east  of 
and  adjoining  block  8,  lot  171,  $75.  Lot  70  by  100  in  block  171,  corner 
Lake  and  Linden,  $175.  Lot  5,  block  177,  size  100  by  100,  $250.  Lot 
2,  block  177,  size  100  by  100,  $250.  Lot  8,  in  block  176,  size  100  by 
100,  $250.  Lot  2,  block  185,  size  100  by  100,  $400.  Total  $2500. 

Map  30,  parcel  200,  Diamond  tract,  lots.  Strip  14  by  397  feet 
long,  being  5,558  sq.  ft.,  at  10  cts.  sq.  ft.,  $555.80.  381 

Map  9,  parcel  197,  25  foot  strip  north  of  Millbrae  pump,  about 
320  ft.  long,  19  one-hundredths  of  an  acre,  at  $2000  per  acre,  $380. 

Map  9,  parcel  133,  Millbrae  Reservoir  lots,  51.70  acres,  at  $1000 
per  acre,  $51,710. 

Map  9,  parcel  131,  Millbrae  pump  lot,  15.356  acres,  at  $1500  per 
acre,  $23,034. 

tCorrection  made  in  Court  July  23,  1915,  that  pipe  is  not  on  214,  215,  216. 

*In  transcript  p.  380  Mr.  Olney  stated  that  156  was  off  the  pipe  line  and 
was  not  in  use.  Correction  was  made  in  Court  July  23,  1915,  that  lot  156  is 
used  for  standpipe  on  San  Andres  pipe  line. 

113 


Baldwin 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

Map  9,  parcels  124  and  193,  Silva  tract,  146.251  acres,  at  $650  per 
acre,  $95,063.15.  It  is  a  little  level  strip  of  land  320  feet  long,  used 
I  presume  as  a  right  of  way.  The  reservoir  lot  of  51.71  acres  is  on 
the  westerly  side  of  the  county  road;  it  rises  from  the  level  of  the 
county  road  toward  the  westerly  portion  of  the  property,  75  or  100 
feet,  I  presume.  It  is  well  situated  and  valuable  for  residence  pur- 
poses; practically  everything  else  is  sub-divided  down  in  that  section. 
The  other  three  tracts  are  also  very  well  situated  for  residential  pur- 

382  poses ;  I  think  they  are  all  specially  adaptable  for  those  purposes.    Re- 
ferring to  the  pipe  line  running  the  length  of  the  Silva  tract,  I  have 
not  studied  the  property  with  the  purpose  in  view  of  ascertaining 
whether  it  would  be  possible  to  sub-divide  and  sell  off  that  property 
and  retain  that  right  of  way,  and  still  keep  the  value  of  the  land  with 
the  property  sub-divided.    I  do  not  know.    In  a  general  way  it  would 
be  quite  remarkable  if  the  pipe  line  was  situated  advantageously  so 
that  a  street  could  be  laid  out  to  follow  it;  it  would  probably  go 
rather  awkwardly  into  the  property  in  making  a  sub-division  of  it. 

CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.   STEINHART. 

I  only  know  about  this  particular  pipe  line  from  the  map. 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  OLNEY. 

Map  9,  parcel  95,  Belmont  pump  lot,  44.67  acres,  at  $750  per 
acre,  $33,502.50.  Map  9,  parcel  158,  Belmont  Reservoir  lot,  33.825 
acres,  at  $500  per  acre,  $16,912.50.  Map  9,  parcel  206,  San  Carlos 
Park  lot,  20  by  30  ft.,  $250,  a  total  of  $50,665.  Parcel  95  is  situated 
on  the  westerly  side  of  the  railroad,  slopes  gradually  from  the  railroad 
up  westerly,  a  very  sightly  tract,  and  I  think,  would  be  quite  salable 
at  that  price  for  residential  purposes  as  a  whole.  That  is  the  tract 

383  that  has  the  water  tower  and  pumping  plant  on  it. 

Questioned  by  Master. 

That  blue  extension  from  parcel  158  is  a  connection  with  the 
Ravenswood  right  of  way.  The  company  had  a  right  of  way  extend- 
ing from  Ravenswood  up  to  Redwood  City,  and  that  right  of  way 
connects  with  this  parcel  158.  I  do  not  know  whether  it  is  in  use 
at  the  present  time  or  not. 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  OLNEY. 

That  portion  of  the  right  of  way  in  connection  with  parcel  158, 
I  have  valued,  and  that  is  included  in  the  area,  so  I  understand,  of 
parcel  158,  which  is  valued  at  $500  an  acre. 

CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.   STEINHART. 

I  have  valued  this  parcel  as  a  whole.  At  the  time  I  valued  it, 
I  only  knew  it  as  a  parcel  of  land.  I  did  not  know  it  was  connected 
with  the  Ravenswood  right  of  way,  and  I  did  not  include  the  Ravens- 

114 


Baldwin 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

wood  right  of  way  in  my  valuation  of  this  parcel.    I  valued  that  tract 

as  an  entirety,  and  incidentally  it  seemed  to  take  in  as  a  part  of  that,       384 

the  right  of  way.    I  did  not  value  it  differently  from  other  land  owned 

in  fee. 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  OLNEY. 

The  little  piece  that  runs  off  to  the  southwest  in  parcel  158,  and 
which  is  apparently  a  part  of  158,  I  valued  upon  the  basis  of  the  com- 
pany owning  the  fee  to  it.  It  is  a  part  of  the  33  acres.  The  land 
included  in  158  is  a  level  piece  of  bottom  land  immediately  across 
the  way  from  the  pumping  station.  The  company  owned  an  undivided 
one-half  interest  in  a  larger  piece  there,  and  made  a  partition  with 
the  owner,  and  got  this — Livernash,  I  believe,  owns  the  balance  of  it.  335 

I  have  made  a  valuation  of  the  Ravenswood  land,  appearing  on 
map  7  of  "Exhibit  8". 

Map  7,  parcel  157,  marsh  lands  between  bay  and  Ravenswood 
Creek,  1328.22  acres,  at  $50  an  acre,  $66,411.  Map  7,  parcel  156 
marsh  land  lying  north  and  east  of  the  Frisbie  tract,  fronting  on  San 
Francisco  Bay,  285.65  acres,  at  $50  per  acre,  $14,282.50.  Map  7,  par- 
cel 155,  marsh  lands  fronting  on  San  Francisco  Bay,  north  of  San 
Francisquito  Creek,  191.28  acres,  at  $50  per  acre,  $9564.  Map  7,  par- 
cel 154,  Frisbie  tract,  high  land  contiguous  to  marsh  land,  40.85  acres, 
at  $300  per  acre,  $12,255,  making  a  total  of  $102,512.50.  I  have  been 
thoroughly  familiar  with  the  property  for  a  good  many  years.  In 
1902  I  bought  a  large  portion  of  the  property  for  the  company.  In 
fact,  I  bought  all  of  it,  except  parcel  155. 

Referring  to  the  tracts  on  the  pipe  line  from  Baden  Junction  to 
the  Central  pump,  "Exhibit  20";  we  bought  all  of  the  right  of  way, 
with  the  exception  of  a  portion  through  the  Flood  lands,  that  portion       386 
was  purchased  by  Mr.  Schussler.     I  have  appraised  these,  and  all  of 
my  appraisements  are  as  of  December  31,  1913. 

Map  8,  parcel  152,  known  as  the  Burnett  property,  a  strip  60  ft. 
wide,  450  ft.  long,  at  $7  per  foot,  $3150.  I  do  not  know  that  I  can 
answer  as  to  what  relation  that  valuation  bears  to  the  valuation  of  ad- 
joining property,  because  there  is  no  adjoining  property  that  has  been 
sold,  so  far  as  I  know.  I  only  know  what  we  had  to  pay  when  we 
wanted  to  get  it,  and  as  it  was  a  considerable  cut  through  the  Burnett 
property,  we  probably  had  to  pay  considerable  more  than  the  pre- 
vailing value  per  acre  of  adjacent  property.  We  paid  $3000  for  it 
on  April  2,  1906.  I  figured  it  by  the  lineal  foot,  at  $7  a  foot,  making 
$3150.  Acreage  .62  acres. 

Map  8,  parcel  181,  lots  1,  2,  3  and  4,  block  7,  School  House  Home-       387 
T5tead,'each  120  by  125,  at  $500  each,  $2000. 

Questioned  by  Master. 

There  are  some  other  lots  in  that  tract ;  lots  7  and  portions  of  lot 
2  and  8  of  block  1,  City  Extension  Homestead,  $1600;  then  in  the 

115 


Baldwin 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

same  section  there  is  a  strip  on  map  8,  parcel  167,  16.3  ft.  wide  by 
126.06  ft.  long,  and  I  put  a  value  of  $630.30— $5.00  per  foot.  We  paid 
$500  for  that  strip  on  March  28,  1907,  and  we  paid  for  lot  7,  and 
portions  of  lots  2  and  8,  of  block  1,  City  Extension  Homestead,  being 
a  portion  of  parcel  181,  $2400,  which  I  value  at  $1600.  We  had  to  pay 
more  than  the  normal  value  of  the  property  because  it  is  part  of  a 
yard  of  Mr.  Geilfuss,  and  this  triangular  piece  was  a  part  of  his 
orchard,  and  he  parted  with  it  even  at  that  price  with  considerable 

388  objection.    It  could  not  be  gotten  now  for  that  price. 

Questioned  by  Master. 

The  4  lots  in  181  cost  $1600.  They  were  bought  considerably 
before  that  time.  Lot  1  was  bought  January  6,  1904;  lots  2  and  3 
January  6,  1904,  and  lot  4  June  17,  1904.  We  had  to  pay  $800  for 
lot  4,  and  we  only  paid  $400  for  lots  2  and  3  and  1.  They  were  all 
bought  from  different  parties. 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  OLNEY. 

I  have  placed  a  valuation  of  $2000  on  them  now,  although  only 
$1600  was  paid  for  them,  as  I  think  they  are  worth  that  from  all  the 
information  I  can  get.  That  property  is  built  up  pretty  well  around ; 
the  Thornton  home  is  right  near  it,  and  there  are  several  cottages  on 
both  sides  of  it. 

There  is  still  another  parcel  in  181.     There  are  three  lots  in  the 

389  Villa  Homestead.    These  I  valued  at  $8000.    We  paid  $3000  on  Octo- 
ber 1,  1906,  for  lot  37,  and  on  the  same  day,  $5000  for  lots  38  and  42, 
$8,000  for  the  property. 

Questioned  by  Master. 

Lot  37  is  part  of  parcel  165  according  to  this  map. 

CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.   STEINHART. 

Lot  37  on  this  map  is  the  only  lot  in  165,  and  we  paid  $3000  for 
it,  and  I  am  now  valuing  it  at  the  same  price. 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  OLNEY. 

Referring  to  the  long  strip  that  runs  through  the  Odd  Fellows 
and  Masonic  Cemetery,  and  which  forms  a  part  of  parcel  181,  that 
is  7  acres,  which  I  valued  at  $10,000  an  acre,  or  $70,000.  It  is  a  strip 

390  132  ft.  wide,  and  2312.2  ft.  long. 

CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.   STEINHART. 

I  valued  this  strip  higher,  by  reason  of  the  fact  that  it  runs 
through  a  cemetery.  I  did  not  consider  it  an  improvement,  but  I 
considered  the  fact  that  it  was  very  difficult  to  get  at  that  time,  and 
you  could  not  buy  it  now  for  anything  like  that  price.  I  did  not 

116 


Baldwin 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

value  that  on  the  basis  of  neighboring  land  in  the  cemetery,  for  if  I 
did,  I  would  get  it  up  to  about  $1.50  a  sq.  foot. 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  OLNEY. 

In  1904,  when  we  started  to  acquire  this  right  of  way,  we  found 
in  dealing  with  some  of  the  property  owners  in  the  City  Extension 
Homestead,  of  which  this  cemetery  was  a  part,  that  there  were  other 
negotiations  instituted  by  somebody.  We  found  that  we  were  bid-  go-, 
ding  against  somebody  else.  There  were  no  cemeteries  established 
at  that  time.  Mr.  Fred  Bergen,  who  carried  on  these  negotiations 
for  us,  reported  difficulty  in  getting  options.  Somebody  was  offer- 
ing more  than  he  was  for  the  property,  and  we  finally  ascertained 
that  Colonel  Patton,  and  several  others  were  organizing  a  company 
to  buy  the  property,  and  we  also  ascertained  subsequently,  from  an 
interview  with  Colonel  Patton  what  he  wanted  it  for.  We  had  an 
understanding  with  him  that  if  he  would  give  the  water  company  a 
right  of  way  through  the  lands  that  he  was  acquiring  at  cost,  plus  ten 
percent  to  cover  expenses,  we  would  turn  over  to  him  any  lands  that 
we  got  that  were  not  required  for  the  pipe  line.  During  a  period 
of  two  or  three  years  the  property  was  rounded  up,  some  purchased 
by  him,  and  some  purchased  by  us  for  the  water  company,  and  an 
adjustment  was  made,  I  think,  some  time  in  1907.  The  ultimate 
result  was  that  we  saved  each  other  considerable  money.  He  got 
his  property  without  having  to  pay  an  exhorbitant  price  and  we  got 
the  right  of  way  at  very  much  less  than  we  would  have  had  to  pay 
for  it  if  we  were  buying  it  from  the  cemetery.  When  it  came  to  qqo 
Cypress  Lawn,  we  paid  15  cents  a  square  foot  for  a  portion  of  the 
property,  and  12  cents  a  square  foot  for  a  portion.  We  made  an 
adjustment  of  the  various  purchases,  and  I  could  not  tell  offhand  the 
cost  without  going  into  the  account ;  it  -could  be  done. 

Subsequently  the  cemeteries  were  established  there,  and  they 
are  there  now. 

Questioned  by  Master. 

Comparing  the  cost  with  my  valuation,  it  did  not  cost  anything 
like  that.  I  can  ascertain  very  closely  on  examination  of  the  ac- 
counts what  we  got  from  him  for  the  land  we  turned  over,  and  what 
he  paid  us  for  the  lands  we  turned  over  to  him. 

Map  8,  parcel  180,  through  City  Extension  Homestead,  132  ft. 
wide,  1449.35  ft.  long,  4.39  acres,  at  $3000  an  acre,  $13,170.  That 
comes,  I  think,  in  the  Patton  arrangements. 

Questioned  by  Master. 

That  is  not  in  the  cemetery.  The  cemetery  is  not  extended  up 
there.'  Mr.  Tommingson  sold  me  the  other  day  some  of  the  land 
that  they  had  acquired,  with  the  intention  of  putting  it  into  the  cem- 
etery, and  which  they  had  not  included  and  still  owned,  which  is  a 
part  of  the  City  Extension  Homestead. 

•117 


SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

393  Map  8,  parcel  160,  that  is  a  strip  of  land  through  Cypress  Lawn 
Cemetery,  80  ft.  wide,  1624  ft.  long,  3.94  acres,  at  $10,000  per  acre, 
$39,400.    The  cost  of  that  I  will  have  to  get.    My  recollection  is  that 
it  cost  a  little  over  $20,000.    It  was  acquired  through  the  influence 
of  Mr.  Borel,  who  was  a  director  in  the  water  company,  and  also  in 
the  Cemetery  Association. 

CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.   STEINHART. 

Parcel  60,  3.94  acres,  my  recollection  is,  cost  $20,153.  There  was 
another  strip  also  bought  from  the  Cypress  Lawn  Cemetery  that  runs 
along  the  cemetery  line.  That  is  in  an  easement  60  ft.  wide,  1027.98 
ft.  long,  1.47  acres,  at  $2500  per  acre,  $3675.  That  is  put  at  a  very 
much  lower  rate,  owing  to  the  fact  that  it  is  at  the  extreme  end  of 

394  the  cemetery.    I  think  that  cost  $1674.    That  is  parcel  169. 

(Counsel  for  Plaintiff  advises  that  there  will  be  no  question  in 
the  record  as  to  what  property  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Co.  owns 
in  fee,  and  what  they  have  an  easement  to,  as  it  is  all  stated  in  the 
inventory.) 

Questioned  by  Master. 

I  would  have  to  do  a  little  guessing  in  valuing  an  easement. 
I  am  considering  the  damage  to  property  more  than  anything  else. 
That  is  the  only  way  that  I  can  arrive  at  the  value.  The  difference 
between  the  value  of  the  property,  and  also  what  injuries  there 
might  be  to  it.  The  company  must  have  the  absolute  control  over  it, 
or  otherwise  I  do  not  imagine  they  would  have  to  pay  $1674  for  it. 
If  it  was  an  easement  for  all  purposes,  it  is  not  very  much  different 

395  from  the  fee. 

Referring  to  parcels  appearing  on  map  8  of  Exhibit  8,  and  num- 
bered 173,  174,  179,  184,  171,  172,  176  and  170,  owned  by  the  com- 
pany on  the  pipe  line  from  Baden  Junction  to  College  Hill,*  those 
parcels  are  all  80  feet  in  width;  a  portion  of  the  strip  is  100  feet 
wide,  that  is  the  strip  through  the  Baden  Tract,  the  balance  is  80 
feet.  My  record  shows  that  parcel  170  is  100  feet  wide,  and  whether 
it  is  or  not,  the  valuation  is  made  by  the  acre.  I  placed  the  same 
value  per  acre  upon  all  these  parcels,  including  177,  $3000  per  acre. 
The  average  cost  of  those  parcels  to  the  company,  per  acre,  was 
$2763.58  net  and  exclusive  of  any  commissions  or  extensions. 

Questioned  by  the  Master. 

Parcel  177,  which  is  a  triangular  lot  at  the  intersection  of  the 
County  Road  and  right  of  way,  was  purchased  on  May  20,  1907,  for 
$500  from  the  Baden  Company.  There  is  .08  of  an  acre  in  it.  On 
ggg  the  basis  of  $3000  an  acre,  makes  the  appraisement  $240. 

Parcel  170,  containing  3.15  acres,  was  purchased  on  the  same 
date  for  $10,000,  appraised  at  $9450. 

*This  was  corrected  in  Court  to  "Central  Pumps"  July  23,  1915. 
118 


Baldwin 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

Parcel  176  was  purchased  from  Flood  and  Mackay,  I  think  it 
was  at  the  same  time,  contains  9.76  acres.  The  price  was  $19,500, 
at  the  rate  of  $2000  per  acre,  on  the  basis  of  $3000  per  acre  the  value 
is  $29,280. 

Parcel  172,  purchased  on  March  28,  1907,  contains  1.37  acres, 
cost  $6350,  or  $4635.03  per  acre.  On  the  basis  of  $3000  per  acre,  it 
figures  $4110. 

Parcel  171,  containing  2.64  acres,  was  purchased  on  April  8, 
1907,  for  $8500,  which  is  at  the  rate  of  $3219.69  per  acre ;  appraised 
at  $7920  on  the  basis  of  $3000  per  acre. 

Parcels  173,  174,  178  and  184  contain  1.40  acres,  costing  on 
March  28,  1907,  $6000,  which  is  at  the  rate  of  $4285.71  per  acre; 
appraised  at  $4200. 

CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY   MR.   STEINHART. 

I  have  not  the  cost  of  those  separate  parcels.    It  was  all  bought 
at  the  same  time.     They  were  bought  from  Mr.  Brooks.     I  don't 
know  why  the  map  is  made  in  separate  parcels,  unless  it  is  owing 
to  courses  and  distances.    I  have  not  any  question  but  that  we  can       397 
explain  them. 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  OLNEY. 

The  account  in  Baldwin  &  Howell's  office  showed  that  we  paid 
$6000  for  the  property.  I  think  the  reason  that  those  are  separate 
is  that  there  were  probably  four  of  the  Brooks  family  that  made 
deeds;  the  property  came  from  the  heirs  of  Brooks,  and  the  prob- 
ability is  that  it  took  four  deeds  to  convey  the  title.  I  have  had  a 
copy  made  of  the  record  in  our  office,  showing  all  properties  pur- 
chased, the  total  cost,  and  the  total  amount  of  sales  that  were  made, 
so  as  to  show  the  net  cost  of  the  entire  right  of  way  from  Baden  to 
Merced.  This  is  the  tabulation  so  made. 

This  tabulation  covers  parcels  180,  181,  169,  173,  174,  178,  184, 
171,  172,  176,  170,  177,  152,  167,  165,  and  it  takes  in  all  of  the  181  's, 
and  also  another  lot  which  is  on  map  9,  parcel  186 ;  it  includes  the 
lot  on  Mission  Road  and  Price  St.  This  piece  cost  $1000.  I  ap- 
praised it  $2595.  The  Clark  piece,  parcel  186,  is  marked  Fountain 
purchase,  $1000  October,  1906. 

CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.   STEINHART. 

I  think  you  will  find  parcel  165  on  there.  One  is  $3000,  and  an- 
other one  is  $5000.  A  man  named  Bowie  is  the  man  as  to  the  $3000 
piece,  and  a  man  named  Guisto  as  to  the  $5000  piece. 

(The  document  referred  to  is  as  follows) : 

119 


Baldwin 


399 


SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

BADEN-MERGED  RIGHT  OP  WAY. 


6,800.00 
5,500.00 
300.00 
750.00 
650.00 
500.00 
400.CK) 
SOO.0'0 
400.00 


January,  1904— 

Joost  purchase  

Rodolph  purchase 

Hawley  purchase  

Parkins  purchase  

Yearean  purchase  „ 

Lagomarsino  purchase 

Schath  purchase  

Koerner  purchase  

Pierce  purchase _ 

February,  1904— 

Geilfuss  purchase _.. 2,400.00 

May,  1904— 

Patton  purchase 2,730.00 

Patton  purchase  „ 500.00 

Patton  purchase  - 600.00 

(These  three  purchases  were  made  through  Mr.  Patton  who  had 

previously  acquired  the  options  from  the  original  owners  at  the 

prices  named.) 

Masonic  Cemetery  purchase,  right  of  way _ 8,755.20 

I.  0.  O.  F.  Cemetery  purchase,  right  of  way 3,760.00 

June,  1904— 

Ulmer  purchase 800.00 

July,  1904— 

Overton  purchase  „ „ _ 300.00 

March,  1906— 

Cypress  Lawn  Cemetery,  purchase  of  right  of  way 20,152.11 

Burnett  purchase  ~ _ 3,000.00 

October,  1906— 

Thornton  purchase  1,000.0 

January,  1907 — 

Bole  purchase „ 3,000.00 

Guisto  purchase  _ 5,000.00 

March,  1907— 

Heirs  of  P.  Brooks  purchase „ 6,000.00 

Arata  and  Lagomarsino  purchase  „ 6,350.00 

Thornton  additional  purchase  500.00 

Baden  Co.   (Burr) 10,000.00 

April,  1907— 

Hamlin  purchase  8,500.00 

Patton  additional  1,039.70 

(These  two  pieces  were  purchased  from  Mr.  Patton  as  before, 

he  having  options  on  the  property  from  the  original  owners  at  the 

prices  named.) 

120 


Baldwin 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

May,  1907— 

Baden  Co.  (Burr),  additional  purchase 500.00 

Flood  purchase,  right  of  way 19,500.00 

Cypress  Lawn  Cemetery  Association  right  of  way 

additional  1,674.74 

Patton  purchase  (final  strip  to  complete  right  of  way)  5,701.78 


Total  purchases -.....$128,268.03 

Sales,  November,  1905 — 

Sale  to  Patton $  9,267.50 

Sales,  April,  1907— 

Sale  to  Patton „ 13,358.50 


Total  sales  22,626.00 


$105,642.03 
Add  expense  and  commission 8,294.70 


Total  cost  - $113,936.73 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  OLNEY. 

I  have  valued  the  parcels  appearing  on  map  7  of  "Exhibit  8",  ^QQ 
and  indicated  by  numbers  148,  183,  189,  163,  147,  145,  150,  149,  201 
and  159.  They  constitute  a  strip  or  right  of  way  for,  I  assume,  a 
pipe  line.  The  strip  varies  in  width.  Some  portions  of  it  are  100 
feet  wide,  some  150.  A  small  part  of  it  is  only  30  feet  in  width,  but 
that  portion  of  it  is  only  .55  of  an  acre,  and  about  787  feet  long. 

Parcel  148,  14.89  acres,  strip  100  by  6475.40  feet. 

Parcel  183,  1.90  acre,  strip  100  by  825.35  feet. 

Parcel  189,  2.35  acres,  strip  100  by  1023.94  feet. 

Parcel  163,  8.36  acres,  strip  100  by  4270.70  feet. 

Parcel  147,  6.35  acres,  strip  100  by  3095.37  feet. 

Parcel  145,  10.59  acres,  strip  100  by  4442.04  feet. 

Parcel  150,  14.59  acres,  strip  100  by  6345.22  feet. 

Parcel  149,  6.25  acres,  strip  100  by  2578.02  feet. 

Parcel  201,  1.45  acres,  strip  150  by  470  feet. 

Parcel  201,  1.39  acres,  strip  50  by  1200  feet. 

Parcel  201,  .55  acre,  strip  30  by  787  feet. 

Parcel  159,  4.69  acres,  strip  30  by  5627.80  feet.* 

(Conceded  by  counsel  for  plaintiff  that  there  are  no  pipes  on 
that  right  of  way.) 

-  Total  acreage,  73.36  acres,  37,140.84  feet  owned  in  fee.    Valua- 
tion $2  per  lineal  foot,  $74,281.68.  401 

*Correction  made  in  Court  July  23,  1915,  that  parcel  159  is  occupied  by 
Alameda  36-inch  pipe  line. 

121 


Baldwin 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

Referring  to  parcel  917  of  easements,  map  7,  it  runs  from  the 
Carnduff  property,  through  the  lands  of  the  University  of  California. 

Questioned  by  Master. 

It  is  that  section  of  the  strip  between  the  colored  portion  marked 
150  and  the  colored  portion  marked  149. 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  OLNEY. 

I  placed  a  value  on  it  of  50  cents  a  lineal  foot,  $4,100.58. 

402  Map  9,  parcels  139  and  197,  I  have  described  as  follows :    Right 
of  way  Tanforan  to  Baden  Station,  north  of  the  County  Road,  25  ft. 
wide,  412  ft.  in  length ;  south  of  the  County  Road  25  ft.  wide,  2542 
ft.  in  length ;  adjacent  strip  on  the  south  28.30  ft.  wide,  3846  ft.  in 
length ;  total  6800  feet.    Total  area  in  the  right  of  way  is  3.973  acres, 
at  $2000  an  acre,  $7946.     (Suggested  by  both  Mr.  Dockweiler  and 
Mr.  Baldwin  that  there  has  never  been  a  pipe  line  on  it,  and  that  it 

403  is  not  in  use). 

I  have  placed  valuation  of  $1  a  lineal  foot  upon  the  pipe  line 
easement  across  private  property  on  the  Crystal  Springs  pipe  line 
from  the  company's  property  immediately  east  of  the  Crystal 
Springs  Reservoir  to  the  San  Francisco  County  line,  containing 
24,177.96  lineal  feet. 

Questioned  by  Master.  Is  that  owned  in  fee,  or  is  it  only  an 
easement  ? 

Mr.  Olney:  That  is  an  easement,  and  my  question  was  so  put. 
In  many  cases  the  easement  has  a  specific  width,  but  in  some  cases 
it  has  not,  it  is  only  an  easement  for  a  pipe  line. 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  OLNEY. 

404  I  placed  a  valuation  of  $1  per  foot  for  the  13,177.3  ft.  of  right 
of  way  occupied  by  the  San  Andres  pipe  line  from  the  San  Andres 
Reservoir  to  the  County  line  of  the  City  and  County  of  San  Fran- 
cisco, exclusive  of  any  properties  owned  in  fee,  making  $13,177.30. 

Map  9,  parcel  129 ;  this  is  situated  on  the  Crystal  Springs  road, 
adjacent  to  the  Templeton  Crocker  home.  To  a  certain  extent  it  is 
within  the  grounds  or  boundaries  of  the  home  place,  contains  only 
.42  of  an  acre.  By  Crystal  Springs  road  I  mean  the  County  Road 
from  San  Mateo  to  Half  Moon  Bay,  which  passes  and  runs  across 
Crystal  Springs.  I  put  a  valuation  of  $1260  on  the  lot,  which  is  at 
the  rate  of  $3000  an  acre.  It  is  about  three-quarters  of  a  mile,  or  a 
mile  west  of  San  Mateo.  It  is  indicated  on  the  map  as  San  Mateo 
screen  tank  lot. 

A  tabulation  of  Mr.  Baldwin's  testimony  in  regard  to  these 
miscellaneous  pieces  and  rights  of  way  offered  as  "Plaintiff's  Ex- 
hibit 21". 

122 


Baldwin 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

(Witness  subject  to  further  call  on  direct  examination  of  this       406 
valuation  year  by  year.    Also  to  make  a  separate  value  for  the  West 
Union   lands,    and   on   the   possibility   of   something   having   been 
omitted  in  this  examination.) 

CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.   STEINHART. 

In  regard  to  lot  129, 1  put  a  valuation  on  it  of  $3000  an  acre  due 
to  the  fact  that  the  property,  especially  a  small  tract,  could  be  sold 
on  that  basis  in  that  vicinity.  If  it  were  a  larger  one,  I  would  have 
put  a  smaller  value  per  acre  upon  it.  The  two  factors  that  particu- 
larly enhance  its  value  are  that  it  is  a  small  tract  and  that  it  is  close  to 
San  Mateo.  Even  if  it  were  further  from  San  Mateo,  or  if  it  were  a  407 
larger  tract,  it  might,  perhaps,  have  a  greater  value,  because,  perhaps, 
I  should  have  valued  it  just  as  a  lot,  or  maybe  by  the  foot.  I  valued  it 
at  $3000  an  acre  as  an  acreage  proposition  for  convenience  more  than 
anything  else.  If  it  had  been  an  acre  tract,  I  probably  would  have 
valued  it  the  same,  or  if  a  two  acre  tract,  I  might  have  shaded  it  some- 
what, as  I  increase  the  area.  I  would  shade  it  if  it  were  a  bigger 
piece,  and  think  that  that  might  account  for  part  of  the  difference. 

Map  9,  parcel  168;  I  will  read  you  the  description  that  I  have 
of  that  parcel  from  my  report  made  on  the  12th  of  July.  I  did  not  408 
make  the  report  on  parcel  168  from  notes  taken  on  the  ground.  It 
was  just  simply  a  mental  note.  I  inspected  the  property  several 
times  within  the  last  six  or  seven  months.  The  description  of  the 
property  is  Southern  Pacific  Railroad  Company  is  in  operation  im- 
mediately adjacent  to  westerly  line  of  this  property;  County  Road 
runs  through  it ;  it  is  a  level  tract  of  land,  partly  subject  to  overflow 
at  high  tide ;  its  chief  value  is  for  industrial  uses.  I  am  informed 
by  Mr.  W.  J.  Martin,  Mgr.  for  the  South  San  Francisco  Land  Co., 
that  it  is  meeting  with  success  in  selling  factory  sites  in  South  San 
Francisco  on  the  basis  of  $3000  per  acre,  and  he  tells  me  that  he  re- 
gards $1500  per  acre  as  a  very  conservative  value  for  the  property 
mentioned.  I  did  not  discuss  with  Mr.  Martin,  nor  am  I  familiar 
with  or  aware  of  a  sale  to  the  Presto  Light  people.  That  is  marsh  409 
land,  but  I  do  not  think  it  is  covered  with  water  all  the  year  round. 
I  have  been  along  there  several  times,  and  it  was  not  covered  with 
water  when  I  was  over  it.  I  don't  think  the  County  Road  is  shut 
off  and  fenced  in.  It  runs  along  near  the  pipe  line  trestle.  I  have  no 
recollection  of  a  white  fence  built  there,  making  it  impossible  to  get 
out  from  that  road.  I  do  not  know  whether  it  is  though  or  not,  as  I 
have  not  seen  it  for  some  months. 

-Map  8,  parcel  214,  215  and  216 ;  this  is  low  land,  sandy  soil, 
good  vegetable  land,  and  used  for  vegetable  gardens.  The  water,  at 
certain  seasons  of  the  year,  in  the  winter  time,  comes  down,  and  may 
effect  the  land  to  some  extent.  I  do  not  think  that  those  parcels  410 

123 


Baldwin 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

fill  every  year  with  the  wash ;  I  am  quite  sure  they  do  not.  I  do  not 
know  what  that  land  rents  for.  I  should  be  surprised  if  it  rents 
for  as  much  as  $30  to  $40  per  acre  per  year.  I  did  not  purchase  the 
Ravenswood  to  Belmont  pipe  line  right  of  way  referred  to  on  page 
7.  I  am  quite  sure  I  bought  those  parcels  214,  215  and  216,  but  I 
don't  remember  any  additional  rights  of  way  purchased  by  me  out- 
side of  those.  I  have  not  purchased  any  other  rights  of  way  for  any 
other  public  utility.  I  have  had  no  experience  in  purchasing  rights 
of  way,  outside  of  the  rights  of  way  that  I  have  testified  to,  nor  have 

411  we  acted  as  rights  of  way  agents  for  anyone  else.     In  valuing  rights 
of  way,  in  fee,  I  have  considered  to  some  extent  the  value  of  the  land 
over  which  the  rights  of  way  extend,  but  I  have  not  made  the  value 
of  the  right  of  way  to  correspond  with  the  value  of  the  land  over 
which  the  right  of  way  exists,  for  the  simple  reason  that  my  experi- 
ence and  observation  is  that  you  cannot  buy  rights  of  way,  especially 
for  a  pipe  line,  at  anything  like  the  actual  value  of  the  land  over 
which  it  goes. 

I  increased  the  value  over  the  mere  acreage  value  that  is  con- 
tained in  the  right  of  way  very  much.  I  don't  figure  the  percent- 
ages, because  it  does  not  strike  me  that  that  is  the  proper  way  to 
doit. 

412  DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  OLNEY. 

The  Ravenswood  right  of  way,  valued  at  $2  a  foot,  figures  about 
$1000  an  acre.  The  only  reason  for  doing  that  is  the  fact  that  a 
right  of  way  was  sold  to  the  Sierra  Light  &  Power  Co.,  across  marsh 
lands  in  March,  1910.  The  company  paid  $14,500  for  the  easement, 
and  for  a  double  power  line  across  the  Bowie  Estate  lands.  The 
Pacific  Gas  &  Electric  Co.,  in  February,  1913,  paid  $3500  for  an  ease- 
ment across  2  1/3  acres  which  were  part  of  the  Laurelwood  Farm, 
near  Santa  Clara.  Those  are  the  only  two  instances  I  am  familiar 
with  regarding  easements.  In  this  case,  I  know  that  a  pipe  line  con- 
structed on  the  right  of  way  would  have  to  be  on  a  trestle  over  the 
marsh  lands.  I  realize  the  fact  that  the  lands  are  not  worth  $1000 
an  acre,  but  it  seems  to  me  that  the  injury  to  the  property  and  the 
inconvenience  that  is  caused  by  the  construction  of  the  pipe  line  on 
a  trestle  is  a  greater  objection  than  would  be  a  power  line.  No 
benefit  can  come  to  the  property  by  reason  of  a  pipe  line  and  trestle. 
A  power  line  furnishes  power  for  pumping  purposes  and  for  other 
electric  purposes,  and  it  seems  to  me  that  if  a  power  company  has 
to  pay  at  any  such  rate  as  that,  which  seems  to  be  the  case  in  the 
only  two  instances  I  know  anything  about,  it  is  not  unreasonable  to 

413  suppose  that  this  line  would  be  worth  that  much.    I  don't  know  what 
it  cost.    I  have  no  information  on  that.    I  do  not  pretend  to  be  an 
expert  on  that  subject ;  I  give  it  to  you  for  what  it  is  worth. 

124 


SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 
CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  STEINHART. 

It  was  a  double  power  line  that  was  included  in  that  easement. 
I  do  not  know  that  a  person  letting  a  power  line  go  through  his  prop- 
erty, could  use  that  power  direct.  Buildings  could  not  be  put  imme- 
diately under  the  power  line,  but  the  land  can  be  utilized. 

I  do  not  know  that  the  San  Francisco  and  Sierra  Power  Line 
Company  had  an  agreed  understanding  that  nobody  along  those  lines 
was  to  have  power.  I  have  no  recollection  of  ever  having  sold  proper- 
ties west  of  Pilarcitos,  nor  west  of  San  Andres,  or  west  of  Crystal 
Springs.  414 

I  not  only  bought  San  Mateo  Park,  but  sub-divided  it,  I  think, 
along  about  1901.  I  think  there  may  be  four  or  five  lots  in  there 
unsold.  It  was  put  on  the  market  14  years  ago. 

Dingee  Park  came  to  us  after  it  had  been  sub-divided  by  someone 
else.  It  was  put  on  the  market,  I  think,  in  1907,  and  it  was  in  1907 
or  1908  that  we  took  hold  of  it,  I  think. 

We  have  not  sold  anything  north  of  the  southerly  end  of  the  lake.      414% 
I  don't  know  of  anything  in  there  except  what  is  owned  by  the  water 
company.     The  El  Cerito  property  I  mentioned  was  adjoining  San 
Mateo. 

The  Uplands,  sold  to  Colonel  Crocker,  was  sold  in  1897  or  1898. 

My  experiences  have  been,  I  should  say,  from  Redwood  City  to  415 
Burlingame.  I  don't  recall  selling  anything  north  of  Burlingame, 
excepting  140  acres  in  the  Silva  tract,  which  we  bought  for  the  Spring 
Valley  Water  Co.  some  years  ago.  We  have  bought  a  good  deal  of 
property  for  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Co.,  and  have  been  connected 
with  them  for  a  good  many  years  in  that  way.  The  late  firm  of 
McAfee  &  Baldwin  was  not  connected  with  them.  I  never  heard  of 
a  map  that  the  firm  of  McAfee  &  Baldwin  put  out,  sub-dividing  Lake 
Merced  about  1889.  In  regard  to  these  transactions  in  Burlingame, 
the  one  to  which  you  have  specially  referred,  the  Colonel  Crocker  home 
for  instance,  I  handled  personally  in  1897.  I  purchased  San  Mateo 
Park  immediately  adjacent  to  San  Mateo,  put  on  the  market,  I  think,  416 
very  shortly  after  it  was  purchased  in  1901.  It  would  be  pretty  hard 
for  me  to  recall  at  the  moment  the  various  transactions  that  I  have 
handled  personally. 

Referring  to  map  3,  parcel  124,  it  has  a  very  fine  growth  of  firs. 
There  is  a  canyon,  a  ravine  that  runs  east,  particularly  wooded.  It 
is  extremely  steep.  I  do  not  recall  in  detail  the  character  of  the  soil.  417 
In  a  general  way  it  might  be  called  a  rough  tract  of  land.  It  has,  as 
I  recall  it,  particularly  attractive  features  by  reason  of  the  growth  of 
timber.  I  went  on  that  parcel  myself.  That  is,  I  think  we  were  on 
the  corners.  They  were  pointed  out  to  me  by  Mr.  Lawrence.  It  is 
possible  that  we  were  at  least  from  one-eighth  to  one-sixteenth  of  a  mile 
away  from  it. 

125 


Baldwin 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

Map  3,  parcel  60,  valued  at  $40;  I  don't  recall  whether  I  was  on 
that  particular  tract,  but  I  went  up  very  close  to  it,  probably  within 
a  quarter  of  a  mile.  I  think  I  went  along  the  road  that  is  in  the  next 
quarter  section. 

418  I  do  not  recall  the  character  of  the  soil,  parcel  20.    I  think  it  is 
very  rough ;  a  good  deal  of  rocks.    I  don 't  remember  any  ravines  and 
gullies.     There  may  be  some.    I  have  been  over  there  twice.     I  think 
it  was  in  April,  1914,  that  I  was  there  for  two  or  three  days. 

419  Map  3,  parcel  6,  $50  an  acre ;  I  think  I  might  answer  the  question 
as  to  whether  I  went  on  that  property  myself,  and  maybe  some  others 
that  you  are  going  to  ask,  by  saying  that  I  did  not  walk  over  every 
one  of  those  parcels  of  land.    My  examination  was  confined  largely  to 
the  view  that  I  would  get  going  up  in  a  machine  and  stopping  at 
different  places.     The  probability  was  that  I  was  close  enough  to  see 
it,  and  to  get  a  general  idea  of  it. 

Parcel  6,  valued  at  $50,  parcel  60  at  $40,  parcel  124  at  $60. 
There  have  been  no  sales  made  there  so  far  as  I  know,  and  in  making 
my  valuation,  I  did  not  take  into  consideration  any  sales  made  imme- 
diately adjacent  to  these  properties  within  the  last  seven  years. 

Parcel  138;  I  do  not  know  of  any  sales  in  the  immediate  neigh- 
borhood of  that  parcel,  and  in  making  my  appraisal,  I  did  not  consider 
any  sales  made  immediately  adjacent  to  that  parcel  within  the  last 
seven  years. 

420  I  did  not  go  upon  that  tract  of  land  referred  to  as  Parcel  No.  92. 
I  did  not  go  to  any  extent  upon  any  tracts  of  land  in  making  my  inves- 
tigations, other  than  such  tracts  of  land  as  were  adjacent  to  the  roads 
covered  by  automobiles.     I  walked  over  portions  of  the  property; 
we  would  stop  and  get  out  of  the  machine  and  walk  some  little  dis- 
tance over  the  property;  practically  all  of  it  is  reasonably  accessible 
by  means  of  those  roads.    This  tract  to  which  you  refer  now  is  prac- 
tically all  in  the  reservoir.    It  is  not  very  likely  I  would  be  on  that.    I 
put  a  value  of  $200  an  acre  on  that  portion  of  the  land  which  is  out 
of  the  reservoir.    That  property  is  inaccessable.     I  did  not  consider  it 
necessary  to  go  upon  the  land  immediately  adjacent  to  it,  as  it  is  in 
perfectly  clear  sight.     It  is  probable  that  the  portion  immediately 

421  adjacent  is  very  difficult  to  get  over,  and  rough  in  character,  but  that 
would  not  make  any  difference  so  far  as  my  idea  of  the  value  of  the 
land  is  concerned.    I  did  not  go  there. 

Map  5,  parcel  212,  $125  an  acre;  I  do  not  know  when  that  was 
purchased  by  the  company.  I  know  absolutely  nothing  about  it. 

Map  5,  parcel  202,  $100  an  acre;  there  are  two  pieces,  one  at 
$100,  and  one  at  $150.  I  did  not  take  into  consideration,  in  making 
my  valuation,  a  sale  made  to  Finckler  immediately  adjacent  to  that 

422  property,  as  I  don't  know  of  it  at  all. 

Referring  to  the  Phelps  property;  it  is  rolling  land,  and  runs  up 
to  the  top  of  the  ridge.  I  went  upon  the  property  myself.  There 

126 


SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

are  gullies  and  ravines  upon  it,  but  not  to  any  extent.  There  is  a 
great  deal  of  that  land  that  is  agricultural  land.  I  do  not  think  that 
the  character  of  the  country  about  there  is  extremely  precipitous. 

"Exhibit  14",  parcel  No.  9,  valued  at  $1750.  That  parcel  is  a 
particularly  well  sheltered  portion  of  the  tract.  It  is  on  the  west  423 
slope,  and  I  think  practically  all  of  that  is  in  vegetable  gardens ;  some 
portions  of  it  down  towards  the  end  is  in  a  forest.  I  think  the  fact 
that  it  is  in  San  Francisco  County  gives  an  added  value  to  it,  though 
there  is  some  of  the  land  adjoining  it  in  San  Mateo  County  that  is 
just  as  good  so  far  as  the  soil  is  concerned.  The  disadvantage  of  over- 
looking the  ocean  is  that  you  are  that  much  farther  away  from  trans- 
portation; also  the  character  of  the  soil  is  not  nearly  as  good  upon 
the  ridge  as  it  is  down  on  those  slopes.  I  did  not  value  that  for  agri- 
cultural purposes.  I  do  not  consider  that  the  fact  that  the  lake  is 
there  adds  very  materially  to  it ;  it  may.  I  did  not  value  the  property 
with  a  view  of  selling  the  tract  in  any  such  sub-division  as  that.  I 
was  simply  using  those  methods  of  sub-division  as  a  means  of  grading  424 
the  value  of  the  property  as  a  whole. 

I  do  not  think  that  there  was  any  property  bought  by  Brickel  in 
that  neighborhood.  There  was  a  sale  made  to  Brickel,  I  think,  of  60 
acres  in  San  Mateo  County,  immediately  southwest  of  parcel  No.  9, 
and  running  down  to  the  ocean.  The  selling  price  of  that,  I  think,  is 
about  $30,000,  I  am  not  sure,  being  about  $500  an  acre. 

I  am  familiar  with  the  sale  from  Whitcomb  Estate  to  Eyre.  That 
is  immediately  adjacent  to  parcel  No.  9,  and  sold  at  $1000  an  acre.  I 
valued  parcel  No.  9  as  a  part  of  the  whole,  at  the  rate  of  $1750  an  425 
acre.  These  sales  have  no  bearing,  in  my  opinion,  on  the  value  of  the 
Merced  property.  They  are  cut  off,  isolated,  and  inaccessible,  and  are 
surrounded  by  this  large  holding.  I  consider  Merced  particularly 
accessible.  Ingleside  Terrace  might  be  better,  but  it  is  quite  access- 
ible. The  United  Railroads,  I  know,  have  not  discontinued  the  service 
to  Ingleside  Terrace  and  St.  Francis  Wood.  I  consider  that  the  valua- 
tion of  Merced  is  greater  than  the  land  covered  by  those  two  sales, 
because  that  property  is  a  portion  of  the  whole  tract,  and  the  tract  as 
a  whole  is  worth,  I  think,  per  acre,  more  than  a  couple  of  isolated 
tracts  that  were  sold  at  particularly  low  prices. 

I  sub-divided  to  some  extent  the  Sutro  Forest  purchase,  which 
was  made  in  the  early  part  of  1912,  823  acres,  at  $2000  per  acre.  The  426 
three  sales  made  by  the  syndicate  of  which  I  was  a  member,  were 
made  at  $3000  an  acre,  being  one  tract  of  82  acres,  one  tract  of  about 
143  acres,  and  another  tract  of  173  acres,  I  think.  The  173  acre  tract 
is  what  is  known  as  the  St.  Francis  Wood.  The  82  acres  is  what  is 
known  as  the  Forest  Hill  tract.  They  were  sold  practically  at  the 
same  time  that  the  other  was  bought,  and  the  selling  price  was  $3000 
per  acre.  The  St.  Francis  Wood  tract  was  sold  in  April,  and  the  deed 
was  recorded  in  March  or  April,  1912,  I  am  not  sure. 

127 


Baldwin 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

427  Tract  No.  3 ;  outside  of  the  fact  that  it  faces  on  the  Pacific  Ocean, 
it  also  has  a  frontage  on  Sloat  Boulevard,  and  is  at  the  extension  of 
the  car  line.    It  is  covered  with  water  to  a  large  extent,  and  a  great 
deal  of  it  is  swampy,  tule  land.    Ingleside  Terrace  was  sold  in  1911  for 
$2700  an  acre,  being  a  tract  of  140  acres.     It  is  immediately  opposite 
parcel  No.  5.    I  am  not  familiar  with  the  price  at  which  Ocean  View 
Park  was  sold.    I  do  not  know  anything  especially  about  Ocean  View 
Park.    I  know  there  is  a  tract  of  land  there  that  has  big  signs  on  it, 

428  saying  that  they  are  offering  it  for  sale  in  sub-divisions.    I  do  not  think 
it  is  any  worse  than  Lake  View,  which  is  around  Ingleside  Terrace.    It 
may  be  true  that  those  tracts  which  are  opposite  the  parcel  I  valued 
at  $3000  were  put  on  the  market  immediately  after  the  fire,  and 
tenanted  by  refugees,  and  that  there  is  not  a  house  on  those  tracts, 
that  cost  more  than  $600  to  $1000.    If  it  were  not  the  case,  this  prop- 
erty, probably,  would  be  worth  more,  but  being  the  case,  I  consider 
that  the  property  is  worth  $3000  an  acre.    I  do  not  place  this  valua- 
tion on  the  land  because  of  the  fact  that  it  is  suitable  for  vegetable 
gardening. 

There  have  been  no  single  sales  along  the  Junipero  Serra  Boule- 
vard opposite  Lake  Merced  at  a  figure  equal  to  $4000,  $5000  or  $6000, 
because  the  property  is  all  sub-divided,  with  the  exception  of  this  land 
that  may  have  been  sold  some  years  ago  as  a  whole.  I  think  the  fact 
that  Lake  Merced  being  in  one  ownership,  a  large  unsettled  and  unsub- 
divided  tract,  would  influence  to  some  extent  the  value  of  surrounding 
property,  and  would  retard  development  to  some  extent.  It  did  not 
influence  the  Urban  Realty  Co.  in  attempting  to  put  a  high-class  sub- 
division right  opposite,  but  I  think  it  has  not  accelerated  it  to  any 
great  extent. 

EIGHTH  HEARING.  JULY  23,  1915. 

Witness  A.  S.  BALDWIN. 

431-437  Discussion  on  reserved  ruling  brought  up  by  question  appearing 

at  page  318  of  the  record,  and  which  was  argued  by  the  parties  at 
pages  330  and  following,  of  the  record.  Objection  was  based  on  ques- 
tion to  have  witness,  Baldwin,  place  a  value  upon  the  Lake  Merced 
lands,  which  he  had  valued  on  the  supposition  that  the  lake,  as  well 
as  the  property  valued,  was  not  dedicated  to  a  public  use. 

The  answer  of  the  witness  was  that  if  the  lakes  were  not  dedicated 
to  a  public  use,  nor  the  property  which  was  being  valued,  it  would 
add  a  10%  increase  to  the  value  of  the  said  lands  for  the  reason  that 
the  lakes  being  private  would  be  available  to  pleasure  uses  of  the  ad- 
joining property,  and  possibly  as  a  source  of  water  supply. 

Statement  by  the  Master  that  when  he  should  come  to  decide  this 
case,  he  is  quite  clear  that  he  would  not  find  his  mind  inclined  to  in- 

128 


Baldwin 


SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

crease  this  valuation  10%  by  reason  of  the  fact  that  possibly  the  lake 
would  be  used  as  the  witness  suggests,  and  the  result  would  be,  that 
the  objection  to  that  question  would  be  sustained. 

After  statement  by  Mr.  Olney  correcting  certain  misapprehen- 
sions in  the  mind  of  the  Master,  he  decided  to  ponder  over  it  further. 
Holds  the  ruling  under  reservation. 

Certain  corrections  noted  in  the  record. 

CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.   STEINHART. 

In  relation  to  parcel  5-2,  west  of  Pilarcitos,  it  contains  2852.82 
acres,  valued  at  $100  an  acre ;  I  did  not  make  any  segregation  of  this 
tract,  but  made  a  lump  valuation,  which  includes  the  various  grades 
and  kinds  of  lands.  I  could  not  describe  the  different  kinds  of  lands, 
nor  have  I  any  idea  as  to  how  many  gulches  or  ravines  there  are  on  it. 
I  did  not  put  any  range  of  valuation  on  the  different  parts  of  that 
tract  of  land. 

Referring  to  portions  of  this  land,  Tract  5-2,  east  of,  and  adjacent 
to  parcels  7  and  28;  I  can  show  you  on  this  big  map  where  we  went. 
We  went  on  the  road  which  runs  southeast  down  the  point  between 
the  two  arms  of  Pilarcitos  Lake,  and  which  runs  on  top  of  the  Spring 
Valley  Kidge  and  the  Whiting  Ridge.  We  went  through  No.  7,  the 
other  road  runs  along  the  top  of  the  Montara  Mountain  Ridge.  I  did 
not  get  out  of  the  automobile  to  go  down  into  any  of  the  ravines  or 
gullies,  nor  could  I  tell  you  the  time  that  I  spent  on  that  particular 
tract.  I  went  over  it  two  or  three  times,  and  probably  went  through 
the  center  of  it,  perhaps,  as  many  as  thirty  or  forty  times  on  the  road 
leading  down  to  the  stone  dam.  I  have  been  over  the  upper  portion 
of  the  tract,  near  the  two  tracts  we  mentioned,  7  and  28,  four  times. 
I  could  not  describe  the  different  parcels  of  land  composing  it ;  I  only 
know  it  in  a  general  way.  My  recollection  is  that  it  is  covered  with 
brush  and  some  small  timber.  Referring  to  the  entire  Tract  5-2,  the 
land  on  both  sides  of  the  road  running  south  from  Pilarcitos  dam 
down  through  the  canyon  slopes  to  the  east  and  also  to  the  west.  The 
west  slope  is  nearly  all  quite  heavily  timbered  with  firs,  madrones,  and 
manzanitas.  I  could  not  tell  you  the  number  of  acres  of  flat  land 
there  are  in  that  tract.  Comparatively  small  portions  of  it  are  flat,  and 
only  from  guess,  perhaps,  10%  of  it  is  what  you  might  call  absolutely 
flat  land,  and  that  is  down  along  the  Pilarcitos  Creek.  Possibly  the 
hill  tops,  and  I  think  throughout  the  whole  tract,  that  10%  of  the  en- 
tire tract  is  flat  land.  That  would  not  alter  my  opinion  or  my  judg- 
ment as  to  the  average  value  of  the  tract.  The  portion  that  I  testified 
to  as  being  flat  land  runs  along  the  road  down  to  stone  dam,  measured 
according  to  my  memory,  probably  an  average  of  several  hundred,  200 
or  250  feet.  The  road  is  apparently,  from  the  map,  about  two  miles 
long.  I  have  never  figured  out  the  acreage,  but  I  suppose  it  is  some- 
where in  the  neighborhood  of  48  acres,  but  I  am  not  positive  as  to  the 

129 


437-440 


441 


442 


443 


444 


Baldwin 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

area.  I  have  not  valued  any  of  this  land  as  agricultural  land.  The 
hillsides  and  wooded  surface  are  worth  more  for  residential  purposes 
than  for  agricultural  land.  I  did  not  consider  it  important  to  grade 
it  to  see  what  portion  of  it  was  suitable  for  residential  land  and  what 
for  other  purposes,  as  I  am  taking  the  whole  22,000  or  23,000  acres 

445  and  making  a  valuation  of  them  as  a  whole.    If  this  tract  had  been  cut 
up  into  smaller  pieces,  I  should  have  made  a  separate  valuation  upon 
each  piece ;  but  looking  at  it  as  an  entirety,  I  regarded  the  value  of  it 
at  $100  as  being  conservative. 

Map  3,  parcel  27,  those  are  triangular  pieces  on  the  edge  of  the 
ridge,  valued  at  $30  an  acre.  My  reason  for  putting  a  nominal  figure 
on  those  was  simply  because  of  the  shape.  In  valuing  it  as  a  whole, 
I  took  into  consideration  that  it  had  to  be  acquired  in  those  shapes, 
and  I  think  that  in  many  instances  the  valuation  of  these  pieces,  by 
reason  of  their  shapes,  is  not  of  advantage  to  the  company,  so  far  as 
establishing  the  value  is  concerned.  I  valued  them  separately,  and 
that  would  apply  to  all  of  it ;  at  the  same  time,  it  establishes  the  value 
of  the  whole  tract,  which  value  I  consider  a  conservative  value.  I 
valued  those  lower  separately  than  I  would  if  they  had  been  attached 

446  to  property  adjoining  and  had  been  a  part  of  it. 

Parcel  5-2,  valued  higher  than  parcel  27  because  it  was  in  much 
more  advantageous  shape  than  those  triangular  pieces;  if  it  were  nec- 
essary to  acquire  this  property  on  December  31,  1913,  and  you  had  to 
deal  with  these  various  owners  at  that  time,  the  valuations  that  I  have 
put  on  each  tract  is  what  I  would  consider  a  conservative  price  to  pay 
for  each  particular  tract,  and  in  order  to  get  the  whole  piece.  If  you 
are  dealing  with  owners  that  have  only  a  small  piece  of  land  like  that, 
I  do  not  think  that  the  valuation  should  be  as  high  as  a  tract  that  could 
be  used  to  advantage.  I  valued  that  on  the  basis  of  what  should  be 
paid  for  it  in  acquiring  the  22,000  or  23,000  acres.  When  I  valued 
these  parcels  here,  I  did  not  value  them  at  a  higher  price,  because  they 
were  a  part  of  a  large  acreage.  Why  should  I?  I  do  not  think  it 
would  have  been  the  proper  way  of  valuing  them.  I  looked  at  it  this 

447  way,  that  there  were  22,000  acres  of  land  there  to  be  acquired  from 
the  various  owners,  assuming  that  they  were  in  various  ownerships, 
and  then  I  considered  what  each  one  of  those  parties  should  receive 
for  the  property  at  that  time,  on  December  31,  1913,  and  I  consider 
the  amount  that  should  be  paid — the  value  of  that  property  as  a  whole 
— the  value  of  the  separate  subdivisions. 

Map  8,  parcel  No.  127,  is  valuable  as  a  right  of  way,  and  could 
be  used  for  that,  but  I  did  not  give  it  an  additional  value  due  to  that 
fact.  I  do  not  know  of  any  other  use  that  it  could  be  put  to.  I  do  not 
mean  to  say  that  the  property  could  not  be  used,  except  those  por- 
tions of  it  here,  which  is  the  lower  part  here, — and  that  might  be 
drained;  the  southerly  portion  is  subject  to  more  or  less  overflow  in 
high  water.  Unless  some  provision  was  made  for  taking  care  of  the 
water,  it  would  be  difficult  to  use  the  property  for  residential  pur- 

130 


SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

poses.  It  is  reasonable  to  assume  that  it  could  be  used  for  that  pur-  448 
pose.  The  value,  $1,000  an  acre,  is  quite  consistent  with  the  valua- 
tion which  is  placed  on  the  right  of  way  for  the  State  Highway,  which 
is  adjacent  to  that,  or  very  close  to  that,  which  was  $1200  an  acre.  I 
am  informed  that  was  put  on  by  surveyors  and  appraisers  at  the  time 
the  highway  was  built.  It  is  higher  ground,  but  especially  consider- 
ing the  fact  for  which  it  was  used,  it  seems  to  me  that  $1200  an  acre 
is  a  pretty  good  price  to  pay  to  benefiting  owners. 

Parcel  No.  127  has  value  for  vegetable  gardens  and  for  living 
there.  I  do  not  see  why  it  could  not  be  used  and  utilized  for  the  homes 
of  those  people  who  would  have  their  places  there,  and  that  is  so  with 
reference  to  all  of  the  lands  in  that  section  used  for  vegetable  gardens. 
The  rent  paid  for  the  vegetable  gardens,  I  suppose,  runs  from  $20  to 
$30  an  acre.  That  is  all  that  is  paid  as  rental  by  the  persons  who  use 
the  land  for  vegetable  gardens  and  living  there,  but  people  do  not  get 
6%  interest  on  what  they  hold  their  land  for.  The  whole  section  there  449 
is  practically  vegetable  gardens,  chicken  ranches  and  duck  ranches, 
and  there  is  no  other  use  than  for  vegetable  gardens.  I  have  not  added 
anything  to  the  value  of  it  by  reason  of  its  residential  value,  but  come 
to  think  of  it  though,  it  might  be  used  as  a  duck  ranch. 

Map  7,  parcel  No.  154,  Frisbie  land,  the  40  odd  acres  is  all  high 
land.  I  went  on  it  in  1902  when  we  bought  it,  and  I  was  down  there 
a  little  over  a  year  ago.  I  did  not  go  around  every  corner  of  it,  but  I 
know  what  we  paid  for  it,  and  I  know  the  difficulty  we  had  in  getting 
it.  I  do  not  think  that  at  least  25  per  cent  of  it  is  marsh  land,  but  even 
if  that  were  the  fact,  my  idea  of  the  value  would  not  be  changed. 

Referring  to  easements,  and  also  to  the  Ravenswood  right  of  way,  450 
I  do  not  pretend  to  be  an  expert  on  that  question,  except  for  the  ex- 
perience we  have  had  in  the  purchase  of  the  right  of  way  from  Baden, 
and  also  with  the  data  that  I  have  been  able  to  obtain,  and  the  fact 
that  we  did  sell  a  right  of  way  a  short  while  ago.  That  is  the  limit  of 
my  experience.  I  have  no  recollection  of  ever  having  acquired  any 
right  of  way  other  than  the  Baden-Merced  right  of  way.  I  handled 
this  Baden-Merced  right  of  way  in  part,  assisted  by  Colonel  Fred 
Bergen.  He  worked  absolutely  under  my  direction.  We  worked  to- 
gether on  it. 

Parcel  No.  152 ;  at  the  time  that  parcel  was  purchased  by  me,  the 
Burnett  lands,  I  think,  were  used  for  vegetable  gardens. 

Parcel  No.  181  is  in  three  parcels,  and  is  the  parcel  in  which  I 
had  the  dealings  with  Mr.  Patton,  in  part,  but  not  entirely.    Referring       451 
to  the  portion  in  the  lower  left  hand  corner,  south  of  No.  180,  that 
land,  as  I  recall  it,  was  practically  all  used  for  vegetable  gardens.  The 
portion  of  that  land  in  parcel  181,  through  the  Geilfuss  holding,  is  the 
portion  north  of  180,  the  triangular  piece.    The  Geilfuss  home  was  in 
existence  at  that  time,  and  it  ran  through  the  orchard.     The  fioon-   9 
t?iins  lived  there  for  years.    I  did  not  say  that  the  Fountain  home  had    ' 
been  built  there.    If  I  did,  it  was  unintentional.    I  had  no  intention 

131 


SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

452  of  saying  that  the  property  had  increased  by  reason  of  the  construc- 
Thorntonti°n  °^  the  Poimtain  home. 

Map  8,  parcel  173.  All  of  the  land  from  there  down  to  Baden  was 
all  of  the  same  character, — vegetable  gardens.  In  fixing  the  value  of 
this  property,  I  did  not  establish  it  by  reason  of  the  value  of  the  lands 
themselves — by  reason  of  the  balance  of  the  tract.  Put  it  this  way: 
The  value,  $3000  per  acre  for  this  right  of  way  from  Baden  to  Cypress 
Lawn  Cemetery,  was  arrived  at  largely  by  reason  of  the  cost ;  that  cost 
was  about  $2700  an  acre  net  to  the  company,  exclusive  of  any  com- 
missions or  expenses  that  we  were  at,  in  1907.  I  valued  this  largely 
by  reason  of  the  cost.  I  don't  think  the  cost  of  the  neighboring  land 

453  entered  appreciably  into  the  cost  of  the  right  of  way,  or  was  it  a  big 
factor  with  the  owners.    Not  in  that  instance,  because  I  think  they 
regarded  largely  the  injury  it  would  be  to  their  property.    The  prop- 
erty is  still  used  as  vegetable  gardens,  and  I  only  increased  that  por- 
tion of  it  in  value  to  any  extent  through  the  cemeteries. 

453-456  Here  ensued  discussion  between  counsel  as  to  what  the  increase 

in  valuation,  $80,000,  referred  to.  Counsel  for  complainant  wants  it 
understood  that  it  includes  much  more  than  these  particular  tracts 
about  which  witness  is  being  examined,  and  that  the  witness'  answers 
have  been  confined  to  speaking  of  the  right  of  way  from  Cypress  Lawn 
to  Baden  Junction,  and  that  from  Cypress  Lawn  Cemetery  south  this 
right  of  way  had  cost  on  an  average  $2700  an  acre,  exclusive  of  com- 
missions and  expenses. 

457  Referring  to  the  Crystal  Springs  pipe  line,  the  only  information 
that  I  have  on  that  subject  is  that  it  consists  of  the  right  to  lay  and 
maintain  a  pipe  line  extending  through  these  various  tracts  owned  by 
private  parties,  and  that  the  easements  are  of  varying  widths.    I  do 
not  know  anything  about  the  conditions  in  those  easements,  but  I 
assume  that  in  all  cases  they  are  easements  to  lay  the  pipes  under  the 
ground.    I  do  not  know  whether  there  are  any  other  restrictions.    I 
assume  that  in  granting  easements  the  company  would  have  right  of 

458  access  to  them  at  all  times.    I  consider  that  it  is  a  very  great  detriment 
to  the  property  of  any  one  having  a  pipe  line  easement ;  it  is  objection- 
able in  case  of  sale.     (The  last  answer  of  witness  was  stricken  out  as 
not  responsive  to  Counsel's  question.) 

Questioned  by  the  Master. 

I  don 't  know  what  the  conditions  are,  if  there  are  any. 

CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.   STEINHART. 

In  valuing  my  pipe  line  fee  land,  I  assume  that  the  company 
would  have  the  right  to  lay  the  pipes  either  above  or  below  the  ground. 

Map  7,  of  ''Exhibit  8",  parcels  148,  183,  189  and  so  forth,  valued 
at  $2  per  foot,  which  is  equivalent  to  about  $1000  an  acre,  that  is  less 
than  I  have  valued  the  right  of  way  covered  by  parcels  173,  174,  178, 
184,  and  so  forth,  being  the  Baden-Merced  right  of  way.  This  I  valued 

459  by  the  acre,  based  upon  what  it  cost.    My  reason  for  valuing  one  at 

132 


SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

$6  per  lineal  foot,  and  the  other  at  $2  per  lineal  foot,  is  because  the 
Ravenswood  right  of  way  is  over  marsh  land,  and  corresponds  with 
the  prices  paid  for  rights  of  way  by  power  companies.  I  don't  know 
what  this  cost.  I  have  no  data  on  that.  Mr.  Sharon  gave  me  one  or 
two  cases  and  I  will  say  from  memory,  they  were  147  or  149,  costing 
about  $1500  an  acre.  I  think  it  was  either  147  or  149,  a  strip  6.35  or 
6.25,  and  another  one  that  went  up  pretty  high.  He  did  not  know 
what  the  whole  was  worth.  He  had  only  the  data  on  four  pieces.  An- 
other piece  was  about  $200  an  acre.  The  other  piece,  as  I  remember  it, 
was  the  piece  through  the  University  lands,  but  I  don't  remember 
what  it  was ;  it  seems  to  me  it  was  30  or  40  cents  a  foot.  I  do  not  re- 
call sales  there  at  $245  an  acre,  $214  an  acre,  and  $180  an  acre.  I  had  460 
no  notes  of  those.  It  was  such  a  small  part  of  the  right  of  way  that  I 
could  not  form  any  views  upon  the  subject,  and  I  thought  that  sales  of 
rights  of  way  to  power  companies  were  more  in  line.  I  do  not  know 
anything  about  what  the  Sierra  Power  Company's  agreement  exacts, 
but  I  do  not  think  that  that  would  cut  any  figure.  I  did  not  consider 
the  $1500  an  acre  sale,  because  I  thought,  perhaps,  they  bought  the 
other,  and  if  they  had  one  piece  left,  the  man,  perhaps,  was  a  little 
grasping  on  it,  and  I  didn't  think  it  established  the  value.  I  did  con- 
sider the  Baden-Merced  right  of  way  a  more  valuable  right  of  way 
than  the  Ravenswood-Belmont  right  of  way. 

Ravenswood-Belmont  right  of  way  runs  as  far  as  my  information  461 
goes,  along  the  marginal  land  between  the  marsh  and  the  high  land. 
The  portion  around  147  and  145  runs  through  Redwood  City,  and  I 
think  it  is  practically  all  marsh  land.  My  valuation  is  not  based  on 
the  character  of  the  land,  and  is  only  governed  by  what  other  people 
have  paid  for  rights  of  way,  and  taking  into  consideration  to  some 
extent  the  fact  that  the  pipe  would  have  to  be  on  a  trestle,  which  I 
think  would  be  very  objectionable.  It  might  not  be  on  a  trestle  through 
the  Frank  Tanning  Co.  land,  and  through  Redwood  City  it  will  have 
to  go  underground,  under  the  water,  I  think. 

Refer  to  page  381  of  testimony,  map  9,  parcel  193,  in  regard  to 
the  Silva  tract. 

(Counsel  for  Complainant  here  interjected  that  he  was  not  re- 
ferring to  the  Silva  tract  there.)  462 

I  should  have,  perhaps,  qualified  my  statement  (page  381  of 
testimony)  by  saying,  that  a  great  deal  of  the  property  in  there, 
Lomita  Park,  close  to  it;  there  are  unsubdivided  tracts  adjacent  to 
that  property.  You  get  south  of  the  Silva  tract  quite  a  distance  463 
before  the  property  is  sub-divided ;  when  you  come  to  Millbrae,  you 
strike  the  Mills  place,  which  is  held  in  its  entirety.  If  you  have 
drSwn  the  conclusion  that  my  valuation  was  placed  on  this  property 
because  I  thought  everything  else  around  had  been  sub-divided,  that 
is  not  the  case. 

(Counsel  for  the  Complainant  here  read  from  the  testimony 
to  show  that  the  reservoir  lot  is  parcel  133,  and  not  the  Silva  tract.) 

133 


SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

Taking  the  easterly  side  of  the  road,  I  am  of  the  impression 
that  the  property  opposite  the  reservoir  lot  has  been  sub-divided; 
also  the  property  opposite  the  Silva  tract.  The  Coleman  property 
on  the  north  has  not  been  sub-divided,  and  the  property  adjacent  to 

464  it  on  the  south  has  not  been  sub-divided.     The  tract  south  of,  and 
contiguous  to  the  Silva  tract  is  the  Bay  Side  Co.,  containing  337 
acres,  which  is  not  sub-divided.    The  County  map  shows  next  to  that 
the  Millbrae  Villa  tract,  and  I  don't  think  that  has  been  sub-divided 
or  built  up.     Next  to  that  is  the  D.  0.  Mills  land,  1100  acres,  not 
sub-divided.    North  of  that  is  the  Coleman  tract,  133  acres,  not  sub- 
divided.    North  of  that  is  the  Ludermans,  used  for  a  nursery.     I 
presume  that  north  of  that  is  the  Dealman  and  Buck  traxjt ;  I  have 

465  not  looked  at  it.     North  of  that  is  the  Cupertino  Land  Co.,  where 
there  have  been  sales  of  $1000  an  acre.    This  has  an  acreage  of  484 
acres.    These  frontages  extend  for  probably  about  a  mile. 

(Counsel  for  Complainant  stated  according  to  the  map  one 
tract  immediately  north  of  the  reservoir  tract,  C.  P.  Chesley,  had 
been  omitted.  Counsel  for  Defendant  claimed  that  to  be  the  Bush 
tract  unsubdivided.) 

I  don't  know  whether  it  has  been  sub-divided  or  not.  I  can  give 
you  some  prices,  if  you  would  like  to  have  them,  on  some  of  these 
lands. 

466  Referring  to  the  factors  of  difference  going  to  make  the  valu- 
ation of  $650  on  the  Silva  tract,  and  $300  on  the  portion  immediately 
on  the  other  side  of  the  ridge,  I  think  this  piece  is  worth  more, 
owing  to  the  fact  that  it  has  a  frontage  on  the  highway,  it  is  worth 
at  least  twice  as  much  as  that  piece  on  the  top  of  the  hill  on  the 

467  west  side  of  the  ridge.     I  think  that  the  east  side  of  the  ridge  is 
more  valuable  than  the  west  side.    I  do  not  know  that  the  Beresford 
land  has  been  found  objectionable  because  of  its  windy  character, 
but  the  land  on  the  east  slope  of  the  ridge,  I  think,  is  protected  from 
the  wind,  and  I  think  all  of  the  land  on  the  east  slope,  all  of  the  way 
up,  is  worth  more  than  it  is  on  the  westerly  slope.     It  does  not 
always  apply  that  the  nearer  you  get  to  the  state  highway  the  more 
it  is  worth.    I  do  think  the  Silva  tract,  having  a  frontage  on  the 
road  there,  taken  as  a  whole,  is  worth  more  than  the  land  on  the 

468  westerly  slope  adjacent  to  it.     If  it  had  been  near  San  Mateo  or 
Burlingame,  it  would  have  been  worth  more.    It  happens  to  be  near 
Millbrae,  but  I  am  not  influenced  in  placing  a  valuation  by  reason 
of  the  fact  that  that  is  the  case.    I  think  the  people  who  buy  lands 
are  the  ones  to  speak  of  that  factor,  as  to  whether  it  is  an  advantage 
being  close  to  Millbrae.    If  it  were  further  south  it  would  be  worth 
more. 

Mr.  Olney  asked  you  this  question:  "Let  me  ask  this  question, 
"Mr.  Baldwin:  In  valuing  these  lands  did  you  assume  that  the  pur- 
Chaser  of  the  land,  for  instance,  would  have  the  right  to  put  down 
"wells? 

134 


Baldwin 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

"A.  I  do  assume  that.  I  assume  that  a  man  would  have  the 
"right  to  do  with  that  land  just  as  he  would  do  with  any  other  land 
''he  was  buying  there. 

"Q.     And  to  the  extent  then  to  which  the  ownership  of  the       469 
"land  gave  him  the  right  to  use  the  water  for  domestic  purposes,  or 
"irrigation,  or  anything  else  on  the  land,  you  would  assume  that  he 
"would  get  whatever  rights  went  with  the  land  and  in  the  nature 
"of  things  the  water?     A.     Yes." 

It  is  my  understanding,  in  speaking  of  the  watershed  lands, 
that  the  owner  has  the  full  use  of  the  land.  Where  the  land  borders 
along  a  stream,  I  think  the  owner  would  have  the  right  to  use  the 
water  in  that  stream.  I  presumed  that  in  part  on  the  westerly  side, 
a  man  would  get  his  water  there  for  pasturage  and  stock  purposes 
on  the  land.  There  are  springs  there  in  places.  I  am  not  prepared 
to  give  you  the  location  of  all  of  them,  nor  have  I  any  idea  how  470 
many  springs  there  are  there.  I  have  no  idea  as  to  their  location, 
but  am  taking  it  for  granted  that  there  are  some  there.  I  don't 
know  whether  there  are  any  or  whether  there  are  not.  I  have  not 
examined  it  as  a  cattle  proposition,  and  I  did  not  say  that  it  was  a 
stock  proposition.  I  might  have  said  that  incidentally  some  of  it 
might  be  used  for  stock  purposes,  but  I  have  regarded  the  entire 
tract  absolutely  as  a  residential  proposition.  To  the  east  of  the  San 
Andres  property  is  the  Kohl  place,  not  immediately  adjacent  to 
Spring  Valley  land.  I  don't  think  there  are  any  of  the  finer  homes 
immediately  contiguous  to  San  Andres  property.  To  the  east  of 
Crystal  Springs,  and  west  of  Burlingame  and  San  Mateo,  the  homes 
that  are  there  are  large  acreage  tracts,  and  the  rear  of  those  tracts 
is  more  or  less  contiguous  to  Spring  Valley.  The  Carolan  place  is  471 
pretty  close;  the  Crocker  place  is  not  very  far;  the  PoniatowsM 
place  is  a  comparatively  short  distance. 

The  Kohl  place  is  probably  three-quarters  of  a  mile  from  the 
Spring  Valley  holdings. 

Mrs.  Carolan  paid  for  the  Carolan  place,  $310  an  acre  in  1912. 
It  is  all  on  the  east  slope,  and  runs  practically  up  to  the  top  of  the 
ridge,  and  runs  down  quite  a  distance. 

The  Polhemus  tract  is  not  settled.     There  are  homes  within  a 
very  short  distance  of  it.     It  covers    between  700  and  800  acres.     471^ 
Below  that  we  get  the  Poor  Farm.    I  do  not  know  where  the  Finkler 
home  is.  y 

The  Carolan  place  is  contiguous  to  the  Spring  Valley  Parcel  No.       472 
90,  map  No.  3.    It  has  an  acreage  of  about  554  acres.    The  property 
was  bought  some  time  prior  to  the  deed — in  October,  1912. 

'  In  regard  to  the  Merced  valuation,  the  highest  value  on  the 
acreage  on  any  of  the  tracts  is  parcel  No.  1,  and  to  the  south  and 
west  values  grade  down.  The  factors  that  make  toward  that  differ- 
ence in  valuation  are  that  you  are  further  away  from  the  developed 

135 


SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

section  of  that  district,  St.  Francis  Wood,  and  Ingleside  Terraces. 
Ocean  View  Park  and  Vista  Grande  Park  are  more  closely  settled 
than  Ingleside  Terraces,  and  Forest  Hill,  but  the  character  of  the 

473  improvements  is  very  different.    The  decrease  in  values  to  the  west 
is  due  to  the  same  reasons  to  some  extent,  but  the  value  is  less  on 
that  tract  near  the  ocean  because  it  was  partly  subject  to  the  seepage 
water  from  the  lake,  which  would  have  to  be  drained  if  it  were 
used  for  residential  purposes,  or  on  the  other  hand,  the  waters  might 
be  of  very  considerable  advantage  if  used  for  the  purpose  that  I 
suggested.    I  am  referring  to  parcel  3. 

Forest  Hill  was  very  beautifully  wooded,  but  I  do  not  think 
the  trees  are  of  any  very  great  advantage  to  that  property  in  the 
quantity  as  they  existed.  They  have  been  made  use  of  in  sub- 
divisions. Some  of  the  trees  have  been  left,  but  it  has  been  a  very 
expensive  proposition  clearing  the  land,  even  to  the  extent  that  it 
has  been  used. 

474  St.  Francis  Wood  was  sold  by  us  at  $3000  an  acre,  and  I  valued 
parcel  No.  9,  which  is  opposite,  at  $6000  an  acre  in  connection  with 
the  valuation  of  the  whole.     I  did  not  increase  the  value,  because 
I  was  valuing  it  as  a  whole.    I  did  not  make  those  sub-divisions  with 
the  idea  of  putting  prices  on  those  particular  tracts,  or  of  sub- 
dividing the  property  in  that  way.    It  was  simply  a  proposition  of 
grading  the  property,  beginning  at  some  point  having  a  maximum 
value,  and  grading  it  from  that  point.    Parcel  1,  in  my  opinion,  is 
the  point  of  maximum  value.    St.  Francis  Wood,  immediately  oppo- 
site that,  sold  in  1912  for  $3000. 

Q.  In  1912,  yes.  Now  is  the  difference  that  you  placed  on  that 
due  to  the  fact  that  you  were  valuing  parcel  No.  1  in  connection 
with  all  the  rest  of  the  land  ?  A.  I  confess  I  do  not  get  the  standpoint 
of  your  question.  The  St.  Francis  Wood  tract  was  176  acres  which 
was  sold  as  a  whole.  Shortly  after  that  an  offer  of  $4000  an  acre 
was  offered  for  it  and  declined.  Mr.  Titus,  who  was  one  of  the 
original  purchasers  wanted  to  sell  at  $4000  an  acre,  and  the  others 
did  not  want  to  sell,  and  they  bought  him  out  and  paid  him  for  his 
interest  on  a  basis  of  $4000  an  acre.  Now,  that  was  before  any 
development  had  taken  place  in  that  section  at  all ;  it  was  in  a  raw 
state,  and  I  therefore  think  that  this  property,  of  a  limited  area, 
being  only  a  little  more  than  10%  of  the  whole,  and  not  taking  in 
any  of  the  high  and  remote  land  that  the  St.  Francis  Wood  tract  took 
in,  should  be  worth  that  much  per  acre. 

475  Ingleside  Terraces  was  on  the  market  in  1912.    It  was  bought 
as  a  whole  in  1911,  and  I  think  they  had  begun  selling  at  that  time. 
I  do  not  think  it  a  fact  that  practically  the  only  sales  there  were 
made  during  the  first  year  and  a  half  it  was  on  the  market,  which 
would  run  up  to  about  1912.    They  have  sold  over  $800,000  worth 
of  property  at  retail.    There  have  been  no  movements  since  about 


SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

August  1,  of  last  year.  I  don't  know  what  they  have  been  doing 
within  the  last  year.  I  imagine  that  their  property  has  been  very 
much,  as  all  real  estate  is,  difficult  to  sell.  I  do  not  think  that  that 
movement  stopped  before  December  31,  1913,  in  Ingleside  Terraces. 
I  am  quite  sure  it  did  not.  I  valued  a  very  small  tract  at  $6000  an 
acre  opposite  St.  Francis  Wood,  as  compared  with  the  other.  I  476 
might  have  thrown  it  into  the  whole  tract,  and  made  the  other  tract 
a  little  more,  that  is  the  adjoining  tract  No.  2.  I  would  have  raised 
tract  No.  2  above  $5000  if  No.  1  were  thrown  into  it.  I  should 
have  made  an  increase  proportionate  to  what  this  increase  is  on 
No.  1,  and  I  would  still  have  considered  No.  1  worth  $6000  an  acre. 
I  raised  this  piece  $2000  above  the  figure  of  $4000,  which  Mr.  Titus 
sold  his  interest  opposite  at,  because  it  is  a  smaller  piece,  and  also 
because  it  is  worth  more.  I  did  not  do  the  same  in  regard  to  my 
valuation  of  the  watershed  lands.  On  the  contrary,  many  of  the 
smaller  pieces  I  have  given  smaller  valuations,  because  they  were 
not  as  useful,  or  not  in  as  good  shape  as  the  larger  pieces. 

The  value  I  placed  on  Merced  is  residential  value.    I  don't  know       477 
that  in  my  own  office,  land  was  offered  at  $2400  an  acre,  near  the 
Park  at  "K"  Street;  I  don't  know  the  particular  sale  to  which  you 
refer.     It  might  have  been  offered  through  my  office.     I  am  not 
familiar  with  all  of  the  lots  that  we  have  for  sale  in  my  place. 

Ingleside  Terraces,  I  think  I  said,  would  have  brought  a  better 
price  had  it  not  been  for  the  surroundings.  I  considered  these  sur- 
roundings a  detriment.  It  does  not  affect,  perhaps,  every  foot  of 
the  property,  but  it  does  have  an  influence  upon  it.  The  property 
in  Ingleside  Terraces,  on  the  whole,  will  not,  and  has  not  sold  for 
anything  near  as  much  as  it  has  in  St.  Francis  Wood.  It  is  not  478 
desirable  to  have  that  class  of  property  either  directly  to  the  south 
of  you,  when  the  line  of  travel  is  from  the  north  to  the  south,  or 
directly  opposite  to  you,  I  do  not  know  that  I  could  draw  any  spe- 
cial distinction  whether  it  was  opposite,  or  whether  it  was  south. 
People  coming  into  Ingleside  Terraces  from  San  Francisco  do  not 
pass  Ocean  View  Park.  You  could  very  easily  conceal  Ocean  View 
Park  in  the  property  opposite  from  Ingleside  Terraces,  the  Merced 
tract,  by  planting  trees.  Junipero  Serra  Boulevard,  at  the  present 
time,  is  a  traveled  road,  and  probably  will  always  remain  so,  but 
the  approach  to  this  property  is  not  restricted  to  that  particular 
road.  You  do  not  have  to  go  through  Ocean  View  Park,  or  would 
not  have  to  go  by  every  time  you  went  into  it ;  that  would  not  be 
the  method  that  anybody  would  be  likely  to  pursue  in  sub-dividing 
the  property.  It  is  directly  opposite. 

"I  have  valued  all  property  fronting  on  Junipero  Serra  Boulevard 
as  being  worth  more  than  the  property  west  of  it,  and  I  consider 
the  property  fronting  there  of  an  increased  value,  in  arriving  at  the       479 
value  of  the  entire  tract. 

137 


SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

Ingleside  Terraces  sold  for  $2700  an  acre  in  1911.  A  portion  of 
the  property  opposite  Ingleside  Terrace  I  have  valued  at  $5000,  and 
a  portion  at  $3000.  I  think  there  is  fully  the  difference  in  value, 
within  that  period,  between  $1300  an  acre  in  1907  for  Ocean  View 
Park,  and  $3000  an  acre,  at  which  I  valued  the  portion  in  Merced 
opposite  that  tract.  I  have  not  graded  parcel  No.  6,  because  prac- 
tically all  of  the  tract  within  the  143  acres  is  level,  or  nearly  so. 
I  did  not  value  the  northerly  part,  nor  the  southerly  part  as  worth 
more,  and  I  did  not  make  any  difference  between  the  northerly  and 
southerly  part.  I  valued  the  tract  as  a  whole.  That  is  as  a  part 
of  the  entire  tract. 

480  Referring  to  the  distinction  between  the  Brickell  piece   and 
parcel  No.  9,  my  distinction  takes  place  exactly  at  the  county  line. 
There  is  a  difference  between  property  in  San  Mateo  and  in  San 
Francisco  Counties.     One  in  the  city  has  at  least  the  prospects  of 
police  protection,  fire  protection,  water,  gas  and  conveniences,  and 
transportation. 

Vista  Grande  tract,  if  opposite  parcel  7,  is  in  San  Mateo  County, 
and  has,  I  imagine,  rather  limited  police  protection.  I  don't  know 
whether  it  has  water  or  electric  light  service.  If  the  Pacific  Gas 
&  Electric  Co.  supplies  electric  light  and  power  there,  that  might 

481  perhaps  increase  the  value  of  parcel  No.  7. 

The  Brickell  piece  is  a  small  piece  pocketed  by  this  ranch  on 
the  shores  of  the  Pacific ;  that  of  itself  is  very  considerable  against 
the  sale  of  it  at  any  price  approximating  the  Merced  lands.  It  is 
about  sixty  acres  in  size,  but  only  about  one-half  of  it  is  available. 
The  balance  is  precipitous.  It  is  on  the  shores  of  the  ocean,  and 
slopes  down  very  steeply.  It  is  worse  in  character  than  parcel  No. 
10.  In  proportion,  there  is  less  level  land  in  the  Brickell  piece  than 
in  parcel  No.  10. 

482  Parcel  No.  4  sold  for  $1000  an  acre   (Whitcomb  property),  I 
think  in  1911  or  12.    Maybe  it  was  sold  in  November  1913.    The  pur- 
chaser was  Mr.  Edward  L.  Eyre.     I  don't  know  whether  he  was 
buying  it  for  himself  or  someone  else.    I  assume  that  it  was  bought 
for  someone  else,  but  I  understand  that  it  was  not  bought  for  the 

483  Spring  Valley  Water  Co.     I  am  quite  sure  that  it  was  not.     The 
Twin  Peaks  tunnel  was  authorized  by  a  resolution,  finally  passed  I 
think,  in  the  latter  part  of  1912.    The  Twin  Peaks  tunnel  increased 
values,  in  my  opinion,  about  Merced,  -to  the  extent  of  the  assess- 
ment.    That  would  be  a  charge  against  the  property.     I  did  not 
say  that  an  immediate  increase  had  followed  the  passing  of  that 
resolution  to  the  extent  of  the  assessment,  unless  the  assessment  had 
been  paid.    At  the  time  of  December  31,  1913,  the  Twin  Peaks  tun- 
nel had  not  increased  the  value  of  this  land;  the  fact  of  this  reso- 
lution having  been  passed,  and  the  proceedings  having  been  com- 
pleted, had  not,  in  my  opinion,  increased  the  value  of  this  property 

138 


SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

beyond  any  figure  that  I  have  put  on  it.  My  valuation  did  not  484 
include  any  increase  at  all  due  to  the  Twin  Peaks  tunnel.  I  only 
put  a  value  on  the  property  of  what  I  considered  it  worth  at  that 
time.  The  Twin  Peaks  tunnel  project  having  reached  a  conclusion, 
might  have  had  some  influence  on  values  there,  and  I  think  it  did. 
I  don't  know  what  increased  the  prices;  I  won't  say  that  it  was 
entirely  due  to  that.  I  think  to  a  certain  extent,  also,  it  was  due 
to  the  development  that  had  taken  place  in  1912  and  1913  in  Forest 
Hill,  St.  Francis  Wood,  and  Ingleside  Terraces. 

I  think  somewhere  between  50  and  55  acres  at  St.  Francis  Wood 
was  sub-divided  and  put  on  the  market.  We  have  had  nothing  to 
do  with  the  development  of  that  property,  only  incidentally.  The 
Mason-McDuffie  Co.  are  the  owners  of  the  property,  and  we  have 
cooperated  with  them  in  a  measure. 

I  did  not  attempt  to  give  the  valuation  of  Lake  Merced  accord- 
ing to  the  lines  in  which  that  property  was  acquired;  I  have  not 
seen  any  map  that  gives  the  property  according  to  the  acquisition. 
I  have  based  my  value  of  Lake  Merced  entirely  on  the  residential 
possibility.  I  think  on  the  lower  portion  of  the  property  there  is 
an  opportunity  for  industrial  development.  The  Southern  Pacific  485 
Railroad  line  is  close  to  it,  as  is  also  the  Ocean  Shore  Railroad.  I 
think  it  highly  probable  that  the  southerly  portion  of  the  property 
might  be  developed  in  that  way,  but  I  have  not  made  any  close  study 
of  any  plan  of  development.  I  valued  this  as  a  whole,  by  taking 
the  separate  parcels  here,  placing  the  valuation  upon  them,  and  by 
adding  them  together,  got  the  valuation  of  the  whole,  and  that  is 
my  idea  as  to  the  market  value  of  that  property  as  of  December  31, 
1913.  The  meaning  of  market  value  is  the  price  at  which  it  could 
be  sold  as  a  whole  if  it  was  available  within,  I  should  think,  five  or 
six  months.  It  might  take  that  time  to  organize  a  syndicate.  The 
Residential  Development  Co.  took  about  that  time  to  organize.  The 
operations  were  suspended  for  quite  awhile,  owing  to  the  fact  that 
some  of  the  people  backed  out,  and  we  had  to  buy  the  undivided 
interests  of  the  people  who  were  selling  the  tract,  from  whom  we 
were  purchasing.  I  was  working  on  the  proposition,  off  and  on,  486 
for  about  a  year.  It  was  a  tract  of  about  820  odd  acres. 

I  don't  know  anything  about  the  Hooper  tract.  I  am  not 
familiar  with  the  property.  I  only  know  that  the  Lent  and  Oxnard 
homes  are  there.  I  have  had  nothing  to  do  with  any  sales.  Some 
portions  of  the  margin  of  Lake  Merced  are  broad  and  have  an  easy 
slope ;  there  is  where  the  margin  comes  very  close  to  the  line,  and  487 
the  banks  are  abrupt.  I  have  put  what  I  regarded  as  a  nominal 
value  on  the  margin  acres  at  $1000  an  acre.  That  marginal  strip 
could  be  used  in  connection  with  the  balance  of  the  land  for  resi- 
dence purposes,  if  it  were  permissable.  There  is  a  great  deal  of  it 
that  is  not  steep  land,  particularly  along  tracts  9  and  10,  and  there 

139 


Baldwin 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

are  many  portions  of  it  along  the  line  of  No.  2.  It  all  borders 
on  the  lake.  No  difference  was  made  in  the  valuation  between  the 
portions  that  overlook  the  lake  and  those  that  do  not,  as  I  have  not 
considered  the  lake  in  any  aspect  whatever.  I  have  gone  on  that 
land,  and  completely  ignored  the  lake  from  a  scenic  standpoint. 

488  I  should  say  that  the  way  to  make  money  out  of  this  land,  would 
be  to  sub-divide  at  least  a  portion  of  it,  but  if  I  were  going  to  sell  it 
in  large  tracts,  I  would  not  sell  it  in  tracts  of  the  shape  such  as  I 
have  graded  it. 

RE-DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.   OLNEY. 

Parcel  129,  in  San  Mateo  screen  tank  tract;  there  have  not 
been  any  sales  immediately  adjacent  to  that  particular  lot  that  I 
know  of,  but  within  a  comparatively  short  distance  of  it.  We  sold, 
in  1911,  a  portion  of  the  Duncan  Hayne  property,  containing  4.48 
acres,  to  O.  C.  Pratt,  Jr.,  at  $3000  an  acre.  That  property  is  prob- 
ably three-quarters  of  a  mile  north  of  the  screen  tank  lot,  which  is 
practically  within  the  enclosure  of  the  Crocker  home  place,  and 
naturally  there  have  been  no  sales  immediately  adjacent  to  it,  but 
I  think  anybody  would  admit,  from  looking  at  the  Pratt  property,  and 
looking  at  the  portion  of  the  Crocker  home  place  adjacent  to  the  screen 
tank  lot,  that  that  portion  of  the  Crocker  home  tract  is  worth  as 

489  much  as  the  property  we  sold.    I  think  the  screen  tank  lot  itself  is 
as  valuable  as  these  adjacent  portions  of  the  Crocker  home  tract. 
The  land  in  Highland  Park,  about  one-half  a  mile  east  of  this  prop- 
erty, has  sold  at  from  $30  to  $40  a  foot,  or  as  high  as  $5000  or  $6000 
an  acre ;  that  is  within  a  very  short  distance  of  this  property. 

There  have  been  some  sales  of  what  you  would  call  rough  land 
in  the  Howard  sub-division,  which  is  west  of  it,  between  this  prop- 
erty and  the  Crystal  Springs  dam.  Driscoll,  I  believe,  paid  about 
$1500  an  acre  for  his  property  up  in  the  Howard  tract.  That  How- 
ard sub-division  is  rather  a  scenic  tract ;  it  is  hillside  and  steep,  but 
that  seems  to  add  somewhat  to  the  value  of  the  property  up  there 
for  home  sites.  It  is  probably  three-quarters  of  a  mile  west  of  this 
particular  piece  of  property.  At  the  time  it  was  purchased  by  Dris- 
coll, I  think  the  roads  were  graded,  the  sewers  were  either  built,  or 
agreed  to  be  built,  and  water  was  available.  The  Duncan  piece,  I 
think,  is  a  more  recent  sale  in  that  tract,  and  I  understand,  sold  at 
$2500  an  acre,  and  consisted  of  four  or  five  acres.  In  the  early  part 

490  of  1901  I  purchased  for  the  company  the  land  referred  to  as  parcels 
214,  215  and  216,  on  map  8,  for  which  I  paid  $700  an  acre. 

Referring  to  the  right  of  way  from  Baden  Junction  to  the 
Merced  pump,  I  valued  the  portion  immediately  to  the  north,  through 
the  cemetery,  on  the  basis  of  $10,000  an  acre,  or  about  22%  cents 
a  square  foot.  Taking  into  consideration  what  the  company  had 
to  pay  for  the  right  of  way  through  Cypress  Lawn,  the  circum- 

140 


Baldwin 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

stances  under  which  it  was  purchased,  and  also  the  fact  that  from 
interviews  that  I  have  had  with  the  representatives  of  the  two  ceme- 
teries, that  the  value  that  I  put  upon  it  was,  in  their  opinion,  below 
the  value.  For  instance,  I  asked  Mr.  Tonningston,  of  the  Masonic  and 
Odd  Fellows  Cemeteries,  if  in  case  this  right  of  way  was  abandoned,  491 
would  the  Cemetery  Association  buy  it  at  that  price;  he  said  he 
thought  they  would  be  very  glad  to  take  it  at  that  figure.  The  cem-  492 
eteries  were  established  subject  to  the  purchase  of  the  right  of  way, 
and  have  been  gradually  settled  up.  There  has  been  no  improve- 
ment in  the  way  of  residences  and  sub-divisions,  or  anything  of  that 
sort,  on  the  rest  of  the  right  of  way  down  there,  but  the  highway 
has  been  constructed  through  it.  The  property  is  much  more  access- 
ible, although  I  doubt  if  it  could  be  sold  for  any  more.  I  do  not 
think  there  has  been  any  material  increase  in  valuation.  I  should 
say  the  property  along  this  particular  line  has  remained  practically 
the  same.  Outside  of  the  cemeteries,  I  think  it  would  be  more 
difficult  now  to  purchase  this  right  of  way  for  this  reason;  at  the 
time  this  was  bought,  Mr.  Schussler  thought  that  the  right  of  way 
might  be  used  as  a  boulevard  or  public  highway,  and  while  no  direct 
promises  were  made,  to  any  of  these  property  owners,  it  was  sug- 
gested that  in  time  there  was  a  possibility  of  its  being  used  for  that 
purpose.  In  the  purchase  from  the  Baden  Co.,  of  the  southerly  por- 
tion of  the  tract,  they  asked  $15,000  for  the  right  of  way  through 
their  property,  and  reduced  the  price  to  $10,000,  with  the  under- 
standing that  the  strip  could  be  used  by  them  at  any  time,  as  a 
road,  but  whether  it  was  or  not,  the  privilege  of  using  that  as  a  road  493 
was  one  of  the  reasons  for  their  reducing  the  price,  and  I  think 
that  now  that  the  highway  is  there,  to  go  and  get  a  strip  would  be 
more  difficult  to  do,  because  that  argument  and  that  incentive  is 
gone.  I  see  no  reason  why  it  would  be,  outside  of  that,  more  difficult 
to  acquire  that  right  of  way  now,  or  more  costly  than  it  was  then. 

In  regard  to  the  lands  west  of  Pilarcitos,  the  westerly  boundary 
line  of  the  lands  of  the  company  run  up  to  the  top  of  the  ridge,  and 
it  depends  upon  how  far  west  you  go,  to  what  extent  the  lands  on 
the  west  side  of  that  ridge  can  be  compared  with  the  company's 
lands  on  the  east  side.  When  you  get  over  to  the  coast,  you  get  into 
a  better  class  of  land,  so  far  as  the  soil  is  concerned,  but  on  the 
westerly  slope  of  the  mountains  the  property  is  more  exposed,  and 
it  is  not  as  accessible  as  these  tracts  are,  by  reason  of  the  roads 
which  exist  through  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Co. 's  property.  Gen- 
erally speaking,  I  do  not  think  the  other  property  is  in  the  same  494 
class  as  property  on  the  easterly  side,  because  it  has  an  entirely 
different  environment. 

Take  the  Pilarcitos  land,  tract  5.2,  and  the  other  lands  which 
lie  immediately  west  of  Pilarcitos,  and  leaving  out  of  consideration 
their  value  for  watershed  purposes,  I  have  already  said  that  I 

141 


Baldwin 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

thought  the  whole  property  was  practically  residential  property,  and 
the  value  is  large  in  looking  at  it  from  that  standpoint,  and  not 
from  an  agricultural  or  stock  proposition.  When  I  say  residential 
properties,  it  does  not  mean  lots,  or  one-  and  two-acre  tracts.  I  mean 
more  of  suburban  or  country  homes,  such  as  exist  around  Woodside, 
Burlingame,  Millbrae,  ba-ck  of  Redwood  and  Menlo,  and  any  of  the 

495  foothill  sections.     It  is  valuable  for  country  estates. 

Tract  5.2,  viewed  from  that  point  of  view,  is  one  of  the  most 
picturesque  and  valuable  portions  of  the  property,  because  it  is  in 
parts  heavily  wooded,  running  streams,  plenty  of  water.  Pilarcitos 
Canyon  is  one  of  the  most  beautiful  places  that  I  have  ever  been  in. 
Trees  extend  to  a  very  considerable  distance  up  the  hillside  slopes. 
Tracts  3,  6,  124  and  60  are  on  the  west  side  of  the  Pilarcitos  Canyon, 
and  all  run  into  this  canyon  or  ravine.  Tract  124,  I  think,  would 
naturally  come  in  with  tract  5.2.  It  is  a  very  difficult  matter  to  say 

496  just  what  tracts  would  be  connected  with  other  tracts,  without  any 
data  as  to  sub-division.    These  tracts  are  not  heavily  wooded  in  the 
entirety.    The  ravines  are  wooded.    I  have  walked  along  the  flume 
indicated  on  map  3,  which  runs  from  Pilarcitos  southerly  and  west- 
erly to  tract  5.2,  and  am  acquainted  with  the  character  of  the  coun- 
try, which  is  all  heavily  wooded,  that  lies  on  each  side  of  it.    In  dis- 
posing of  that  property,  or  putting  a  value  upon  it,  and  assuming 
that  it  is  all  owned  by  one  person,  I  would  consider  and  value  these 
particular  tracts  in  conjunction  with  the  rest  of  the  property.     If 
the  thing  was  not  sub-divided,  and  had  not  been  acquired  in  that 
state,  it  would  have  gone  into  the  valuation  on  a  larger  tract,  and  my 
values  upon  these  various  tracts  was  placed  upon  them  in  view  of 
the  fact  that  the  property  was  in  one  ownership. 

497  Tract  92  is  clearly  visible  from  across  the  lake.    It  can  be  seen 
from  nearby,  and  I  did  not  consider  it  was  necessary  to  go  over  every 
foot  of  the  land.    It  was  possible  to  ascertain  with  accuracy  and  with 
certainty  what  its  general  character  was  for  purposes  of  valuation, 
without  actually  going  on  it.    I  did  not  consider  it  necessary  to  go  on 
that  particular  tract,  or  on  a  good  many  others,  because  I  felt  that  my 
general  knowledge  of  values  in  that  section,  and  the  examination  I 
could  make  in  the  way  I  did  make  it,  was  sufficient  to  give  me  the  in- 

498  formation  I  was  endeavoring  to  obtain.     In  going  over  a  portion  of 
this  property  in  an  automobile,  I  got  out  at  a  number  of  places ;  wher- 
ever we  could  not  see  clearly  from  the  automobile,  and  where  the 
automobile  could  not  go,  we  got  out,  as  frequently  as  I  thought  it  was 
necessary.     I  don't  remember  how  often  it  was,  but  maybe  half  a 
dozen  times  or  more,  and  when  we  got  out  we  would  look  at  the  prop- 
erty. 

I  should  say  that  taking  all  of  this  country  which  lies  to  the  west 

499  of  the  line  drawn  north-westerly  and  south-easterly,  through  the  center 
of  the  San  Andres  Lake  and  down  the  San  Andres  Creek,  then  down 

142 


Baldwin 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

through  the  Crystal  Springs  Lake,  and  taking  the  land  that  lies  west 
of  that,  that  it  has,  to  a  very  large  extent,  the  same  general  character. 
It  consists  of  ridges  and  valleys.  There  are  some  streams,  particularly 
in  the  Pilarcitos  Canyon,  and  in  the  San  Mateo  Creek.  The  tops  of 
the  ridges  are  generally  free  from  timber.  They  are  generally  open, 
except  in  the  north-westerly  portion  of  the  property,  which  is  more  or 
less  covered  with  brush,  and  the  tops  of  the  ridges  here  are  generally 
open,  grassy  land.  I  think  it  is  the  Cahill  Ridge  where  the  road  runs 
for  a  large  distance  through  timber.  The  Montara  Mountains  are  not, 
it  is  open.  Generally  speaking,  the  canyons  are  wooded. 

Omitting  the  West  Union  Creek  lands  of  1322  acres,  at  $125  an 
acre,  it  would  leave  an  average  value  of  the  land  on  the  westerly  side  500 
of  the  hypothetical  line  drawn  through  San  Andres  and  Crystal 
Springs,  starting  from  the  southerly  end  of  the  holdings  on  the  Canada, 
up  to  the  northerly  line  of  San  Andres,  and  taking  in  entirely  that 
northerly  piece,  of  about  $101  an  acre.  I  should  have  included  parcel 
144.  In  round  numbers  there  are  about  17,000  acres  in  that  terri- 
tory. A  little  over  300  acres  to  the  east  of  this  imaginary  line,  on  the 
easterly  slope,  are  watersheds.  I  think  it  is  16.,700  and  something.  I 
shall  have  to  get  those  figures.  This  acreage,  which  lies  to  the  west  of 
this  imaginary  line,  could,  I  think,  without  any  doubt,  be  disposed  of 
at  $100  an  acre,  and  I  think  it  would  be  a  profitable  real  estate  in- 
vestment to  buy  them  at  that  figure  and  then  dispose  of  them.  I  don't 
think  there  would  be  the  slightest  difficulty  in  getting  real  estate  men 
to  engage  in  that  enterprise. 

My  average  value  for  the  watershed  lands  which  lie  to  the  east 
of  this  imaginary  line,  describing  them  in  general  as  running  from 
this  imaginary  line  up  to  the  top  of  the  Buri  Buri  Ridge,  is  about  $255 
an  acre.  I  assume  that  these  figures  are  correct,  and  will  have  a  state-  501 
ment  prepared.  I  think  this  tract  could  be  sold  as  a  whole  at  that  rate, 
but  I  think  the  entire  property  could  better  be  sold  in  the  aggregate 
of  the  two,  than  either  one  separately.  As  an  entirety  it  would  be  more 
salable,  and  would  be  a  more  satisfactory  project  to  develop  and 
handle.  The  figures  which  I  have  placed  on  it  are  not  the  highest 
market  price  of  these  lands.  I  have  put  a  price  which  I  regard  as  con- 
servative, and  which  would  leave,  in  my  opinion,  a  very  handsome 
profit  to  any  syndicate  that  would  buy  the  property  and  develop  it. 

I  have  a  list  of  some  of  the  transactions  that  we  put  through,  and 
those  which  I  personally  handled  in  and  around  San  Mateo  and  Burl- 
ingame,  and  that  general  region  immediately  to  the  east  of  this  prop- 
erty. This  list  includes  sales  of  acreage  property,  and  also  of  sales  in  ^02 
Burlingame,  El  Cerito,  and  other  properties  that  are  of  smaller  acre- 
age." The  list  is  not  intended  to  be  a  list  of  all  sales  that  we  have  made 
there.  It  does  not  include  sales  that  we  made  of  Burlingame  property, 
for  the  reason  that  my  record  of  those  sales  was  destroyed.  I  have  a 
record  of  the  principal  sales  made  since  1897.  Referring  to  this  list, 

143 


Baldwin 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

503  we  have  conducted  sales  of  acreage  property  in  an  amount  consider- 
ably over  a  million  dollars.    I  should  say  that  our  sales  within  the  last 
fifteen  years  have  amounted  to  between  a  million  and  a  half,  and  two 
million  dollars.    In  the  amount  of  acreage  involved  it  would  not  be 
very  much,  because  with  very  few  exceptions,  it  was  all  high-priced 

504  property.    The  largest  piece  in  the  whole  that  was  sold  was  the  Clark 
Tract  near  San  Mateo,  which  is  now  San  Mateo  Park,  amounting  to 
300  acres.     I  fixed  the  prices  on  all  subdivision  property.     For  in- 
stance, Burlingame,  El  Cerito,  San  Mateo  Park,  Dingee  Park,  Hay- 
ward  Addition,  Hayward  Park,  every  subdivision  that  we  had. 

Map  5,  parcel  212 ;  I  did  not  know  that  that  piece  was  purchased 
by  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Co.,  in  1912,  for  $56  an  acre,  but  if  it  had 
been,  I  should  not  have  made  any  different  valuation  from  the  $125 
an  acre,  which  I  put  on  it ;  that  value,  I  think,  is  fully  sustained  by  a 
sale  that  has  just  been  made  to  Mr.  George  Holberton,  of  some  700 
acres  lying  to  the  east  of  this  property,  and  in  the  canyon  on  the  road 
leading  to  Redwood.  I  do  not  think  that  property  is  as  good  as  this. 

505  The  price  obtained  from  the  Holberton  sale  was  $125  an  acre.    I  had 
Mr.  Pickering,  of  our  office,  interview  Mr.  Holberton,  and  that  is  what 
he  told  me  he  said.    That  is  neither  here  nor  there,  though,  because 
that  sale  had  not  been  made  at  the  time  I  made  this  valuation.    The 
Holberton  land  lies  immediately  to  the  east  of  Tract  202. 

We  sold  100  acres,  known  as  the  Maloney  property,  to  Connolly, 
which  is  immediately  south  of  parcel  208.  It  was  sold  in  May,  1910, 
for  $11,000.  That  is  $110  an  acre.  In  February,  1913,  we  offered  Mr. 
Connolly  $200  an  acre  for  it,  but  he  said  that  the  property  was  not  for 
sale.  Subsequently,  it  was  acquired  by  Mr.  Oscar  Beatty,  and  is  now 

506  owned  by  him ;  it  is  for  sale  at  $250  an  acre.    This  property  was  im- 
mediately south  of  parcel  208.    It  adjoins  it.    As  between  Tracts  208 
and  the  Beatty  land,  I  think  it  is  about  the  same  in  character.    I  don 't 
think  210  is  quite  as  good  as  208.    I  have  placed  a  valuation  of  $125  an 
acre  on  Tracts  194,  195,  205,  211  and  208,  which  are  in  the  West  Union 
Creek  watershed,  and  not  within  the  watershed  of  Crystal  Springs. 
(The  broken  lines  through  there  is  the  watershed  line.    The  land  which 
lies  to  the  west  and  south  of  that  land  is  the  land  of  the  watershed  of 
the  West  Union  Creek,  1322  acres).    1322  acres,  at  a  valuation  of  $125 

507  an  acre,  will  make  $165,250. 

Map  3,  Tract  90  (Howard  Tract).  The  irregular  line  running 
across  the  south-easterly  corner  of  the  property  northerly  and  south- 
erly, is  the  line  of  the  watershed  between  the  Crystal  Springs  water- 
shed and  the  watershed  of  San  Mateo  Creek  below  the  dam.  I  placed 
a  valuation  upon  that  portion  of  the  Howard  Tract  which  is  not  within 
the  Crystal  Springs  Reservoir  watershed  of  $400  an  acre,  $83,664.  The 
acreage  in  there  is  209.16.  Referring  to  Tracts  37  and  54,  on  map  4, 
and  parcel  36  on  map  3,  which  is  immediately  to  the  north  of  parcel 
54,  there  are  portions  of  these  tracts  where  the  water  runs  into  San 

144 


Baldwin 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

Mateo  Creek  below  the  dam,  and  the  acreage  which  is  so  within  the 
watershed  of  San  Mateo  Creek  below  the  dam,  and  not  within  the 
Crystal  Springs  Reservoir  watershed,  is  85.58  acres,  valued  at  $300 
an  acre,  total  $25,674. 

The  following  tabulation,  which  is  a  valuation  by  Mr.  Baldwin,        508 
placed  on  the  Phelps  Tract,  and  on  these  three  pieces,  without  the 
watershed  of  Crystal  Springs,  was  copied  into  the  record : 

COMPLAINANTS  EXHIBIT  No. 

No.  1054 

Spring  Valley  Water  Company 

Appraisal  Dept. 

July  22,  1915. 

W.  0.  Jr. 

Valuation  of  portions  of 
Phelps  Tract,  West  Union 
Creek  Lands,  Howard  Tract, 
etc.,  not  within  the  Crystal 
Springs  Res.  watershed. 

A.  S.  Baldwin. 

Valuation  of  A.  S.  Baldwin  on  Phelps  Tract  (option 
lands),  and  the  portions  of  parcels  194, 195,  205,  211,  210 
and  208  (West  Union  Creek  Lands),  and  of  Parcels  90 
(Howard  Tract),  37,  54  and  36,  not  within  the  watershed 
of  Crystal  Springs  Reservoir. 

Phelps  Tract 969.94  acres  at  $125.  per  acre  $121,242.50 

The  portions  of  Parcels 
194,  195,  205,  211,  210 
and  208  lying  in  the 
West  Union  Creek  Water- 
shed, and  not  within  the 
Crystal  Springs  Reser- 
voir Watershed  1322.  acres  at  $125.  per  acre  $165,250.00 

The  portion  of  Parcel  90  509 
(Howard     Tract)     lying 
east   of,   and  not  within 
the  Crystal  Springs  Res- 
ervoir Watershed  209.16  acres  at  $400.  per  acre  $  83,664.00 

The  portions  of  Parcels 
37,  54  and  36  lying  east 
of  and  not  within  the 
Crystal  Springs  Water- 
shed    85.58  acres  at  $300.  per  acre  $  25,674.00 

145 


Baldwin 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

Map  9,  parcels  133,  197,  131,  193  and  24;  I  based  my  value  on 
those  lands  by  sales  in  or  near  the  vicinity  of  the  property  in  ques- 
tion. The  Silva  tract — not  the  Spring  Valley  Silva  tract,  but  an- 
other one  on  the  county  road  north  of  it,  about  132  acres,  sold  four 
years  ago  for  $500  an  acre,  and  resold  about  two  and  a  half  years 
ago  at  $800  an  acre,  and  about  a  year  ago  resold  at  $900  an  acre. 
That  is  the  only  sale  of  a  large  piece  close  to  this  property,  with  the 
exception  of  a  sale  that  has  recently  taken  place  from  Ansel  M. 
510  Easton,  to  Hale  Bros.  The  land  was  taken  in  on  a  trade  at  $1100 
an  acre. 

(Motion  to  strike  this  last  statement  out,  on  the  grounds  that  it 
is  immaterial,  irrelevant  and  incompetent,  granted.) 

I  got  at  my  valuation  from  my  general  knowledge  of  .values 
down  there,  and  also  the  sale  of  this  other  property,  which  is  the 
only  one  in  the  way  of  acreage  which  I  know  of  immediately  near 
that.  I  do  not  think  that  the  Silva  tract,  132  acres,  is  as  good  as 
any  of  this  property  here  belonging  to  the  water  company. 

NINTH  HEARING.  JULY  26,  1915. 

Witness:    A.  S.  BALDWIN. 

Referring  to  reserved  ruling  on  question  appearing  on  page  318 
of  the  transcript,  which  was  answered  on  the  following  page:  In- 
terpretation put  upon  it  by  the  Master  is  that  having  given  value  for 
the  lands  in  the  Lake  Merced  properties,  exclusive  of  the  lakes  them- 
selves, Mr.  Baldwin,  in  response  to  question  objected  to,  says  that 
if  the  lakes  were  included  and  the  whole  property  sold,  he  would  in- 
crease his  valuation  10%  of  the  amount  he  has  already  given.  Ob- 
jection is,  therefore,  overruled. 

Exception  noted  by  counsel  for  defendants.  Not  necessary  as 
stipulation  already  made  to  cover. 

Certain  corrections  noted  on  the  face  of  the  record. 

513-514  CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.   STEINHART. 

In  placing  my  valuation  on  the  Lake  Merced  lands,  I  did  not 
assume,  or  give  any  consideration  to  development  of  water  upon  the 
property  itself,  but  that  water  could  be  obtained  when  needed  from 
the  Spring  Valley  Water  Co.,  just  as  it  is  being  supplied  to  St. 
Francis  Wood  and  the  Ingleside  Terraces. 

The  Whitcomb  purchase  was  made  by  Mr.  Eyre,  who  is  a  di- 
rector of  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Co.,  and  is  the  piece  indicated  on 
"Plaintiff's  Exhibit  14",  which  is  the  easterly  portion  of  that  tract. 

In  regard  to  rights  of  way  which  I  have  been  instrumental  in 
purchasing,  I  did  not  consider  as  an  important  factor  the  value  of 
the  neighboring  lands,  and  that  applies  to  all  the  rights  of  way  that 

146 


Baldwin 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

I  have  valued.    The  only  other  right  of  way,  except  the  easement,  is 
the  Ravenswood  land. 

(Mr.  Olney  here  calls  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  witness'  an- 
swer is  possibly  misleading;  that  the  lots  in  the  Abbey  Homestead, 
which  are  on  the  right  of  way  of  one  of  the  pipe  lines,  he  simply  put 
the  market  value  on,  but  the  strips  he  valued  in  the  manner  in  which 
he  testified  to.) 

RE-DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.   OLNEY. 

A  map  showing  in  a  general  way  the  cities  of  San  Mateo  and 
Burlingame,  and  the  region  thereabouts,  offered  and  received  in  evi- 
dence as  "Plaintiff's  Exhibit  22".  Map  entitled  "Map  of  the  City 
of  San  Mateo  and  the  Town  of  Burlingame,  and  surrounding  prop- 
erties", dated  1906. 

Witness  indicates  by  a  cross  the  approximate  location  of  the  San 
Mateo  screen  tank  lot.  516 

Witness  indicates  boundary  line  of  tracts  which  he  or  his  firm 
purchased  and  subdivided  in  that  general  neighborhood.  It  is 
marked  "San  Mateo  Park",  and  consists  of  295.61  acres,  acquired 
in  1902.  El  Cerito  Park  we  subdivided  and  sold.  We  disposed  of 
it  for  the  Howard  &  Goewey  people ;  we  placed  the  value  on  it.  El 
Cerito  was  sold,  I  think,  about  1898,  and  Highland  Park,  immedi- 
ately adjoins  the  property  marked  "Crocker  Heirs",  and  that  is  the 
tract  in  which  this  screen  house  tank  lot  is  located.  Highland  Park 
was  sold  in  about  1900.  The  Hayward  Addition  was  bought  in  1905, 
consisting  of  20  acres,  for  which  we  paid  $4000.  The  adjoining  prop- 
erty we  sold  to  the  syndicate,  that  is  the  109  acres.  This  is  known  517 
as  Hayward  Park,  and  was  sold  for  $200,000. 

The  tract  immediately  south  of  the  lands  marked  "A.  L. 
Brewer",  containing  24.33  acres,  was  sold  on  February  20,  1912,  for 
$1200  per  acre.  This  property  slopes  gradually  up  towards  the  west. 
Not  steep  land.  Three  sales  were  made  by  us  for  Mr.  Pillsbury,  in 
parcel  marked  on  the  map  "Burlingame  Park".  These  were  small 
tracts  west  of  the  Burlingame  Club,  on  the  same  road.  One  sale  made 
January  29,  1913,  2.35  acres,  at  $3300  an  acre ;  another  February  10,  518 
1913,  of  2.23  acres,  at  $3300  an  acre ;  another  of  2.30  acres,  at  $3300 
an  acre.  These  tracts  are  adjoining  each  other.  (Mr.  Olney:  We 
do  not  claim  that  a  value  of  $3300  an  acre  for  property  down  here 
would  stand  as  a  comparison  with  the  value  of  the  property  over  in 
Crystal  Springs.)  I  have  already  testified  to  a  sale  at  $3000  an  acre,  519 
which  was  nearer  the  screen  tank  property  than  these  others  are. 
It  is  marked  "2"  on  this  map,  north  of  the  land  marked  "Howard", 
-  and  was  a  sale  made  to  O.  C.  Pratt,  Jr.,  on  November  20,  1911.  This 
property  is  really  west  of  El  Cerito  Park.  The  whole  district,  I 
assume,  is  called  that  now. 

The  sale  Carolan  to  Irwin,  of  31.25  acres,  was  made  on  Septem- 
ber 5,  1913,  for  $165,000,  and  was  an  improved  place,  marked  in 

147 


Baldwin 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

pencil  on  the  map  "W.  G.  Irwin".    It  included  the  house,  but  no 
furniture.    The  improvements,  I  don't  think,  were  worth  over  $15,- 

520  000  or  $20,000. 

The  piece  marked  in  pencil  on  the  map  "The  Jennie  Crocker- 
Whitman  piece",  I  have  not  the  data  as  to  that. 

The  Carolan  piece  marked  in  pencil  500  acres;  I  have  never 
been  over  it,  but  have  seen  it  from  the  top  of  the  hill.  Some  of  it 
is  hilly,  some  of  it  is  cut  up,  some  is  flat,  some  of  it  is  good  land,  and 
I  presume  some  of  it  is  bad  land.  It  is  somewhat  rocky  in  some 
portions,  and  is  high,  sloping  up  toward  the  ridge,  which  is  the  west- 
erly line  of  the  property.  The  Carolan 's  new  house,  I  have  seen 
from  the  road,  and  from  memory  I  should  say  it  is  not  over  100  feet 
below  the  summit  in  altitude,  but  it  is  probably  a  quarter,  or  a  half 
mile  from  the  top  of  the  hill.  It  is  on  top  of  a  sort  of  a  spur  that 

521  runs  out  from  the  east. 

(Objected  to  as  immaterial,  irrelevant  and  incompetent,  and  as 
misleading.  Objection  sustained.) 

The  Poniatowski  Tract  was  known  as  the  old  Reddington  Place. 
It  contained  509  acres,  and  was  sold  at  the  rate  of  about  $132.61  an 
acre  in  1898,  to  Prince  Poniatowski,  for  $67.500.  I  also  made  all  of 
the  Burlingame  sales  adjacent  to  the  Reddington  Place,  at  about 
$1000  an  acre.  The  Poniatowski  Place  is  very  hilly,  very  steep,  and 
considerably  cut  up  by  ravines.  It  is  a  broken  tract.  The  land  that 
sold  for  $1000  an  acre,  at  about  the  same  time,  lies  to  the  north  of 
it.  Those  sales  were  in  small  parcels.  This  was  a  big  piece. 

I  have  not  been  into  the  Crocker  place  since  he  built  there.  It 
is  on  a  portion  of  that  property. 

522  The  actual  average  per  acre  of  the  watershed  lands  of  the  San 
Andres,  Pilarcitos  and  Crystal  Springs  watershed,  west  of  the  line 
running  approximately  north  and  south,  through  the  center  of  the 
San  Andres  and  Crystal  Springs  Reservoirs,  is  $101.98.    The  average 
as  to  the  lands  east  of  the  same  line  is  $253.53. 

Referring  to  the  Merced  lands :  The  Brickell  Tract  is  quite  steep 
on  the  westerly  slope,  broken  by  the  cliffs  on  the  shore  line.  The 
easterly  portion  is  comparatively  level.  It  is  on  the  top  of  the  ridge, 
and  pitches  off  to  the  ocean  on  the  westerly  portion. 

The  Whitcomb  Tract  is  partly  on  the  ridge,  and  then  slopes  to 
the  east.  The  south-westerly  corner  is  quite  sandy.  The  Brickell 
Tract  contains  a  little  more  soil,  and  not  so  much  shifting  sand  as 
there  is  in  the  southwest  corner  of  the  Whitcomb  Tract.  I  do  not 
think  there  is  any  material  difference  in  the  soil  in  the  easterly  por- 

523  tion  of  the  Brickell  property  from  that  of  the  watershed  lands  im- 
mediately south  of  it. 

Tract  9,  "Plaintiff's  Exhibit  14",  as  compared  with  these  two 
tracts,  is  very  much  more  sheltered,  and  slopes  easier.  It  is  not  so 
steep  as  the  Whitcomb  Tract.  The  Brickell  Tract  is  comparatively 

148 


Baldwin 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

level  on  top.  The  chief  objection  to  the  Brickell  property  is  the  fact 
that  there  is  a  good  deal  of  waste  land  on  it.  Also  that  it  is,  or  was 
pocketed,  and  is  isolated,  difficult  of  access,  and  surrounded  by  the 
property  of  the  Merced  lands.  I  think  that  had  a  good  deal  to  do 
with  the  matter  of  value,  and  perhaps  the  difficulty  of  sale.  I  had 
nothing  to  do  with  the  sale,  and  know  nothing  more  about  it  than 
from  hearsay.  Tract  9  has  quite  a  number  of  scattered  pines  and 
cypress  in  the  easterly  or  north-easterly  portion  of  it.  It  is  not  a 
forest. 

The  Whitcomb  land,  I  do  not  think,  is  worth  as  much  per  acre 
as  Tract  9,  and  the  Brickell  property  would  only  compare  in  value 
with  the  land  immediately  south  of  part  of  Tract  8.  Tract  8  I  valued 
in  two  ways.  A  portion  of  it  is  valued  at  $1500  an  acre,  and  there 
are  about  98  acres  valued  at  $500  an  acre.  A  portion  of  Tract  8  524 
which  lies  immediately  south  of  the  Brickell  piece,  would  come  under 
the  $500  an  acre  valuation,  and  a  portion  under  the  $1500  valua- 
tion. I  do  not  know  the  exact  area  in  that  parcel.  If  there  are  60 
acres  in  the  Brickell  piece,  there  are  probably  70  acres  in  the  ad- 
joining piece. 

The  fact  that  the  Brickell  and  Whitcomb  Tracts  are  surrounded 
by  the  Lake  Merced  Tracts  of  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Co.,  would 
affect  their  market  value  because  they  are  not  get-atable.  The  av- 
erage person  would  not  care  to  buy  a  piece  of  property  entirely  sur- 
rounded by  a  large  tract,  as  the  Brickell  Tract  is.  Nothing  but  front- 
age on  the  ocean,  and  no  way  of  reaching  it.  The  same  would  apply 
to  the  Whitcomb  property.  525 

I  do  not  know  about  any  dealings  with  the  Webber  Tract,  ex- 
cept that  it  was  offered  for  sale  some  time  ago.  •  526 

The  portions  of  Ocean  View  Park,  and  Vista  Grande  Park,  im- 
mediately adjoining  the  Lake  Merced  lands,  and  immediately  to  the 
east  of  the  Junipero  Serra  Boulevard,  are  not  thickly  settled,  but  the 
thickly  settled  portions  of  those  tracts  are  some  little  distance  fur- 
ther east.  Referring  to  "Plaintiff's  Exhibit  No.  7"  Ingleside  Ter- 
race adjoins  the  City  Land  Association,  and  what  is  known  as  Lake 
View.  Lake  View  is  perhaps  a  little  bit  better  in  the  character  of 
its  improvements  than  the  Ocean  View  Tract,  but  there  is  not  much 
difference.  The  character  of  the  improvements  in  the  City  Land  527 
Association  Tract  have  apparently  not  materially  effected  the  im- 
provements in  the  Ingleside  Terrace  Tract,  as  in  this  latter  tract  they 
are  all  of  a  high  class.  The  presence  of  the  cheaper  districts  has  not 
prevented  the  construction  of  these  better  houses.  There  are  several 
very  excellent  residences  within  a  block  of  the  City  Land  Associa- 
tion, a~nd  quite  a  number  within  one  or  two  blocks  of  Lake  View. 

Tract  D,  which  is  the  142  acre  tract  forming  part  of  the  Sutro 
Tract,  sold  to  Spring-Meyerstein  by  me  in  1912,  for  $300  an  acre,  is 
not  worth  anything  like  as  much  per  acre  as  Tract  1,  of  the  Lake 
Merced  lands,  map  "Plaintiff's  Exhibit  14",  because  there  is  land 

149 


Baldwin 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

there  that  will  be  very  expensive  to  develop,  and  I  should  think 
there  are  15  or  18  acres  which  consist  of  the  rocky  hill  which  has 
been  developed  since  the  purchase  for  quarrying  purposes.  Those 

528  15  or  18  acres  are  not  worth  as  much  per  acre  as  the  balance  of  the 
tract.     The  portion  now  known  as  Claremont  Court,  in  the  south- 
westerly corner  of  the  tract,  was  cut  up  by  a  ravine,  which  made  it 
quite  expensive  to  develop. 

It  is  a  map  of  the  823  acres  included  in  the  Residential  Develop- 
ment Company's  deal,  which  is  the  property  that  I  purchased  from 
the  Sutro  heirs,  and  divided  into  large  tracts  after  it  was  purchased. 
Tract  D  I  sold  to  John  H.  Spring  and  A.  L.  Meyerstein.  That  con- 
stitutes West  Portal  Terrace,  Claremont  Court,  and  El  Portal,  but 
those  tracts  do  not  take  in  the  whole  142  acres.  They  constitute  a 
portion  of  it.  Tract  D  constitutes  the  portion  sold  to  the  St.  Francis 
Wood  people.  With  reference  to  this  map,  Forest  Hill  is  indicated 

529  in  Tract  A.    Later  they  bought  the  23  acres  adjoining  to  the  north; 
which  is  really  a  part  of  Forest  Hill  now,  and  I  think  they  have 
given  it  the  name  of  Forest  Hill  Court. 

Offered  in  evidence  as  "Plaintiff's  Exhibit  23". 

Map  entitled  "Topographical  Map  of  the  Forest  Hill  and  San 
Miguel  Ranch,  showing  lands  owned  by  estate  of  Adolph  Sutro.  de- 
ceased", offered  and  admitted  in  evidence  as  "Plaintiff's  Exhibit 
24". 

Referring  to  "Plaintiff's  Exhibit  23",  the  tract  marked  "D" 
was  sold  to  the  St.  Francis  Wood  people,  and  is  land  that  slopes  up  to 
quite  an  elevation  toward  the  east ;  nearly  all  of  it  is  covered  with 
a  pretty  heavy  growth  of  pines  and  eucalyptus,  which  have  been 
quite  expensive  to  clear.  It  is  a  more  expensive  piece  of  property 
to  develop  than  the  Merced  property,  or  the  same  area  across  the 
way.  It  was  sold  in  April,  1912. 

530  The  Forest  Hill  Tract,  or  Tract  B,  was  sold  several  months  after- 
wards, or  maybe  a  month  afterwards.    The  interest  of  Mr.  Titus  in 
the  St.  Francis  Wood  Tract  was  purchased,  I  understand,  only  a  few 

531  months  afterwards  for  $4000. 

Discussion  between  counsels  as  to  whether  this  purchase,  made 
from  Mr.  Titus,  was  not  of  his  shares  of  stock  in  that  company,  and 
whether  or  not  it  was  a  cash  sale.  Conceded  by  counsel  for  defend- 
ant that  there  is  no  question  about  the  sale  by  Mr.  Titus  of  his  in- 
terest in  the  property  being  on  the  basis  of  $4000  per  acre.  Counsel 
for  Plaintiff  to  get  direct  evidence  as  to  the  nature  of  the  transac- 
tion. 

The  tract  marked  on  map  "Plaintiff's  Exhibit  23"  as  Balboa 
Terrace,  and  adjoining  St.  Francis  Wood,  is  the  15  acre  tract  for- 
merly owned  by  the  German  Benevolent  Society.  It  was  purchased 

532  by  Baldwin  and  Howell  for  $80,000,  at  the  rate  of  $5,333.33  an  acre, 
in  August,  1912.    On  "Plaintiff's  Exhibit  14"  it  is  across  the  way, 
immediately  east  of  Tract  1,  and  is  north  of  Ingelside  Terraces,  south 

150 


Baldwin 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

of  St.  Francis  Wood,  and  is  right  across  the  street  from  Tract  1  of 

the  Merced  lands.    It  was  sold  in  August,  1912.  533 

I  think  that  tract  A  (Forest  Hill  district)  as  compared  with  tract 
D  (St.  Francis  Wood  district),  is  practically  the  same  as  to  general 
availability  for  residential  purposes.  Tract  A  is  very  much  steeper 
than  tract  D,  which,  however,  does  not  militate  against  its  desirability 
as  a  residential  tract.  Immediately  north  of  tract  A  there  was  a  23 
acre  tract,  owned  by  the  City,  and  I  think  its  value  for  residential 
purposes  is  about  the  same  as  that  of  tract  A.  I  understand  they  are 
asking  the  same  price,  and  getting  the  same  rate  per  front  foot  for  lots 
in  that  tract  that  they  are  in  tract  A.  The  23  acres  immediately  north  534 
of  tract  A,  on  "Plaintiff's  Exhibit  23",  was  sold  at  public  auction  on 
July  17,  1913,  for  $120,000  cash,  which  is  $5,217  per  acre.  On  Novem- 
ber 3,  1913,  the  City  purchased  from  the  Forest  Hill  Eealty  Company, 
81/2  acres  southeast  of,  and  adjoining  the  Alms  House  tract,  fronting 
on  the  Alms  House  road,  being  in  the  north-easterly  corner  of  Tract 
"B".  It  is  the  portion  of  tract  B  which  lies  northerly  of  the  road 
marked  "Alms  House  Road",  and  I  understand  they  paid  $4,000  per 
acre. 

The  character  of  the  improvements,  (street  work,  etc.,)  in  Forest 
Hill  and  St.  Francis  Wood  tracts,  has  been  good.  The  character  of  535 
the  street  work  differs  somewhat  in  the  two  tracts.  They  have  been 
developed  as  high-class  residence  properties,  and  it  cannot  have  any- 
thing but  a  good  effect  on  the  value  of  the  Lake  Merced  properties. 
The  value  of  $1000  an  acre  on  the  marginal  land  surrounding  Lake 
Merced  was  placed  on  them  in  conjunction  with  the  balance  of  the 
property.  The  fact  that  these  Lake  Merced  lands  are  a  large  and 
compact  body  of  land  under  one  ownership,  I  think  is  a  very  decided 
advantage.  It  is  an  advantage  to  be  able  to  control  the  character  of 
the  development,  prevent  the  construction  of  objectionable  improve- 
ments, and  to  be  able  to  restrict,  which  of  itself  adds  to  the  value  of 
property,  and  which  is  difficult  to  do  in  any  other  part  of  the  city, 
except  in  that  portion  which  lies  to  the  west  of  Twin  Peaks,  and 
especially  the  acreage  property.  I  think  that  Forest  Hill  tract  and 
St.  Francis  Wood  are  restricted  districts,  as  is  also  Ingleside  Ter-  536 
races.  The  City  Land  Association,  Lake  View,  and  Ocean  View,  are 
none  of  them  restricted  districts,  as  far  as  my  knowledge  goes. 

(Explanation  of  the  meaning  of  the  word  "restricted"  as  used.) 

Sales  in  this  general  neighborhood  were  fairly  good,  as  of  August 
1,  1914,  but  it  was  not  as  active  as  it  had  been  in  the  latter  part  of 
1912  and  during  1913.  That  condition  is  not  confined  to  that  partic- 
ular district.  It  is  the  same,  I  think,  all  over  the  city,  and  is  simply 
the  general  depression  due  to  the  war. 

K  Street  is  three  blocks  south  of  the  Park,  and  42nd  Avenue  is        537 
about  seven  blocks  from  the  Beach.    There  are  no  such  improvements 
there  as  are  in  Forest  Hill,  St.  Francis  Wood,  or  Ingleside  Terraces. 

151 


Baldwin 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

I  am  not  referring  now  to  42nd  and  K,  but  to  the  property  to  the 
north  of  it,  where  the  streets  have  been  graded.  42nd  Avenue  is  not 
cut  through  more  than  half  way  between  I  and  J,  then  you  come  to 
the  sand  hills,  and  there  are  no  streets  there  at  all,  except  on  the  map. 
42nd  and  K  Streets,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  is  in  the  middle  of  drifting 
•;>  .  sand  hills. 

538  RE-CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.   STEINHART 

The  sale  from  the  City  to  the  north  of  Forest  Hill  is  right  at  the 
terminus  of  the  9th  Avenue  car.  I  am  not  positive  as  to  whether 
that  car  was  in  operation  at  that  time  or  not.  It  is  right  next  to  what 
is  now  Windsor  Terrace,  which  I  do  not  think  was  in  existence  at  that 
time. 

I  do  not  know  anything  about  the  relation  of  the  piece  purchased 
by  the  City  for  $4,000,  to  the  City's  water  supply  to  the  Alms  House 
tract. 

There  was  a  piece  to  the  north  of  that,  of  32  acres,  sold  for 

539  $2500  an  acre,  from  Wells-Fargo  to  the  City.    Referring  to  Stanford 
Heights,  to  the  south  of  that,  I  do  not  know  that  Mr.  Crittenden  is 
offering  that  land  on  an  acreage  basis  at  about  $2400  an  acre. 

The  Callamoor  piece  is  to  the  north,  and  is  separated  from  the 
Wells-Fargo  piece  that  the  City  bought,  by  a  little  piece  owned  by  Mrs. 
Craig,  of  20  acres.  The  Callamoor  tract  sold  at  less  than  $1000  an 
acre.  I  sold  it. 

I  did  not  give  Balboa  Terrace  any  consideration  in  placing  my 
price  on  tract  1.  Baldwin  &  Howell  bought  that.  It  was  the  one 
piece  not  owned  at  the  time  of  the  purchase  by  the  syndicate,  (Re- 
ferring to  the  original  Sutro  tract),  and  was  immediately  adjoining 

540  the  West  Gate  Park  tract.    It  was  the  one  piece  of  property  located 
in  the  Sutro  tract  that  was  not  still  held  by  the  Residential  Develop- 
ment Company,  or  by  one  of  the  companies  that  had  bought  from  them 
for  subdivision  purposes. 

I  do  not  think  that  Mr.  Howell  had  anything  to  do  in  regard  to 
the  purchase  of  that  piece  of  property.  I  called  on  Mr.  Max  Schmidt, 
the  President  of  the  German  Benevolent  Society,  in  regard  to  it. 
I  did  not  offer  $20,000  for  the  piece.  If  an  offer  was  made  by  anybody 
from  Baldwin  &  Howell,  of  $20,000  for  that  property,  it  is  news  to 
me.  I  never  offered  any  such  price.  If  Mr.  Howell  did,  it  is  entirely 
without  my  knowledge.  I  never  heard  of  it. 

Mr.  Steinhart — Q.  Is  not  this  the  history  of  the  entire  transac- 
tion :  that  Mr.  Howell  called  upon  them  and  offered  them  $20,000  for 
that  piece  of  land ;  that  eleven  out  of  twelve  of  their  board  of  directors 
were  willing  to  accept  that ;  that  one  of  them  called  attention  to  the 
fact  that  they  were  the  one  piece  cutting  into  the  Sutro  Forest  tract 
and  that  they  thereupon  refused  to  sell  it;  that  Baldwin  &  Howell 
thereafter  offered  $25,000 ;  that  they  kept  going  up,  and  that  you  your- 

152 


Baldwin 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

self  finally  met  one  of  the  directors  of  the  German  Benevolent  Society 
on  the  street  and  objected  to  the  fact  that  they  were  holding  you  up, 
and  you  finally  said  ' '  will  you  take  $80,000  ? ' '  Now,  is  not  that  a  fact  ? 
A.  No. 

Q.     That  is  not  a  fact?     A.     No;  none  of  those  statements  are       541 
facts ;  they  wanted  $100,000  for  the  property. 

(Moved  that  that  be  stricken  out.  Decided  by  Master  that  that 
can  come  out  in  further  re-direct  examination  of  the  witness.) 

Tract  No.  8  in  the  Merced  Tract ;  there  are  about  22  or  23  acres 
of  land  in  the  westerly  portion  of  it  that  is  precipitous,  somewhat  like 
the  Brickell  property.  About  70  acres  that  I  would  not  say  was  waste 
land  by  any  means,  but  there  are  swales.  They  are  not  exactly 
ravines,  but  they  are  not  level,  and  that  is  along  the  easterly  portion 
of  the  tract.  This  ravine  does  not  run  parallel  to  the  shore  of  the 
lake.  It  runs  southwest  of  it.  I  do  not  know  how  many  acres  there 
are  in  that  portion  there.  (Marked  with  a  pencil  by  counsel  for  De- 
fendant on  map)  I  should  say  from  looking  at  it,  and  making  a 
guess,  that  there  might  be  75  acres.  I  made  an  average  value  of  $500  542 
an  acre  for  98  acres.  That  would  take  about  75  acres,  and  about  23 
acres  here  on  the  south-westerly  portion  of  tract  8.  The  remainder, 
next  to  the  Brickell  piece  would  come  in  with  the  balance  of  the  prop- 
erty, $1500  an  acre.  That  valuation,  of  course  you  understand,  is 
made  as  a  part  of  the  whole. 

As  far  as  my  observation  goes,  the  character  of  the  buildings  in 
Ingleside  Terraces,  adjacent  or  near  the  City  Land  Association,  is 
good.  I  will  not  say  that  they  are  as  expensive  as  most  of  the  build- 
ings that  are  constructed  in  other  portions  of  it.  There  is  no  building 
in  Ingleside  Terraces,  either  near  the  City  Land  Associaton  or  Lake 
View,  of  a  cheap  character.  Those  residence,  as  far  as  I  can  see,  run 
in  value  or  cost  from  $6000  to  $10,000.  543 

In  relation  to  the  Ingleside  Terrace,  I  do  not  know  about  the 
limit  of  the  restrictions  there,  and  that  the  districts  that  are  the 
poorest  and  the  cheapest,  and  that  have  very  low  building  restrictions, 
are  the  districts  next  to  Lake  View  and  Ocean  View  tracts.  St.  Fran- 
cis Wood  slopes  back  from  the  boulevard,  and  the  higher  portions 
have  a  view  of  the  ocean,  but  the  views  are  very  limited.  The  slope 
of  the  land,  so  far  as  the  present  subdivision  is  concerned,  is  so 
gradual  that  only  occasional  views  of  the  ocean  can  be  had  from  it. 
I  do  not  know  that  higher  prices  have  been  obtained  as  to  the  land 
further  back  from  the  boulevard;  my  impression  is  that  there  is  no 
material  difference  in  the  prices.  (Mr.  Steinhart :  Just  for  your  own 
information,  Mr.  Baldwin,  I  will  state  that  I  investigated  that;  my  544 
-impression  is  that  there  is  no  material  difference  in  the  prices). 

According  to  that  list,  the  only  sale  in  1913  that  I  made,  is  the        545 
sale  to  Irwin,  but  there  were  other  sales.     I  have  another  sale  we 
made  there  on  July  3,  1913,  of  the  Dingee  Park  property,  which  is 

153 


Baldwin 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

not  on  that  list,  and  there  may  be  some  others.  I  don't  think  there 
are  very  many.  We  have  not  been  actively  handling  any  property 
there.  I  don't  know  that  any  acreage  property  has  been  for  sale  be- 
tween Burlingame,  or  even  Millbrae  and  south  to  Redwood,  except 
those  who  have  had  exclusive  selling  rights.  Dingee  Park  is  not  a 
subdivision  proposition. 

Pompanio  Ranch,  2600  acres,  at  $1000,  is  a  ranch  near  Pesca- 
dero  and  San  Gregoria,  and  is  one  of  three  sales  in  1912. 

546  Counsel  for  Defendant  here  referred  to  list  of  properties  intro- 
duced by  witness,  and  which  list  was  a  list  of  the  properties  which 
witness  had  personally  conducted  the  sale  of.    Stated  it  to  be  his  wish 
to  have  a  complete  list  of  all  sales  made  between  1897  and  1913  for 
purpose  of  showing  the  number  of  sales  witness  has  made. 

547  I  want  to  correct  that,  however;  I  have  no  recollection  of  ever 
having  mentioned  anything  about  the  Pompanio  Ranch.     It  was  a 
sale  I  had  nothing  to  do  with.    It  was  made  in  the  office.     It  was,  in 
part,  an  exchange. 

In  speaking  of  the  two  sales  in  1911,  one  in  El  Cerito  Park,  and 
the  other  near  Woodside,  if  you  are  referring  to  the  list  of  sales  that 
I  gave  Mr.  Olney,  those  are  the  only  sales  on  that  list.  The  sale  in 
1909,  of  the  Boswick  Ranch,  San  Mateo  County,  Mares  and  Saunders, 
to  C.  A.  Hooper,  was  made  by  Mr.  Pickering  in  conjunction  with  Mr. 
Tuxton,  of  Redwood.  This  was  west  of  the  original  Hooper  tract,  and 
runs  over  to  the  Canada.  The  price  for  the  tract  of  729  acres  was 

548  $50,000,  about  $70  an  acre,  in  1909.    It  adjoins  parcel  202,  of  map  5, 
on  the  south  and  east.    If  the  only  sale  in  1908  was  a  lot  in  Highland 
Park,  as  the  list  appears,  that  is  correct.    There  are  no  sales  on  this 
list  in  1907.     The  only  sale  as  appears  on  this  list  in  1906  was  the 

549  sale  of  14  acres  in  Hayward  Park.     I  have  everything  on  that  list 
that  I  have  testified  to.    We  have  sold  no  acreage  property,  excepting 
those  sales  in  Burlingame,  and  excepting  what  is  on  this  list,  if  you 
exclude  sales  in  subdivisions,  and  if  you  exclude  all  sales  in  Bur- 
lingame made  prior  to,  maybe,  1900.     I  can  give  you  a  full  list  of 
sales  in  properties  that  had  been  subdivided  in  San  Mateo  Park,  Hay- 
ward  Park,  and  Hayward  Addition.     The  Burlingame  sales  that  we 
made  were  all  in  acreage.    The  El  Cerito  sales  were  all  acreage.    The 
San  Mateo  Park  was  in  lots,  but  averaging,  as  I  recall,  about  an  acre 
each.    Hayward  Park  and  Hayward  Addition  sales  were  similar.    The 
average  size  of  sales  of  that  sort  in  acreage  subdivisions,  as  distin- 
guished from  lot  subdivisions,  run  usually  1,  2,  or  3  acres.    When  I 
spoke  of  the  Urban  Subdivision,  I  had  not  in  contemplation  then  any 

550  idea  of  a  subdivision  into  small  areas  like  that,  1  or  2  acres.     That 
property  might  be  sold  in  100  or  200  acres ;  some  only  in  5  acres,  and 
some  in  10  acres.    I  cannot  tell  you  what  the  average  urban  proposition 
is.     You  can  go  to  Woodside  and  find  them  probably  as  high  as  50 
acres.    I  think  Fleischacker  's  place  is  probably  30  or  35  acres. 

154 


Baldwin 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

RE-CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  STEINHART  551 

The  Driscoll  property,  which  I  compared  with  the  San  Mateo 
screen  tank  property,  is  in  the  Howard  subdivision,  and  west  of  the 
Crocker  home,  and  between  it  and  the  Crystal  Springs  Reservoir,  on 
the  south  side  of  the  map.  I  do  not  know  exactly  the  location.  It  is 
a  piece  marked  estate  of  William  Howard.  Driscoll  has  a  piece  there, 
and  also  a  man  by  the  name  of  Duncan  has  a  piece.  I  can  get  the 
exact  location,  but  I  cannot  locate  it  on  the  map. 

In  reference  to  a  sale  from  Maloney  to  Connolly,  in  November, 
1910,  for  about  $100  an  acre,  I  said  we  had  an  offer  of  $200  an  acre, 
in  February,  1913.  I  did  not  handle  the  re-sale  to  Beatty.  We  had  552 
nothing  to  do  with  it.  I  don't  know  what  the  deal  was.  Connolly 
and  Beatty  were  either  co-executors,  or  they  represented  in  a  way, 
the  Hooper  estate.  Connolly  sold  the  property,  as  I  understand  it, 
to  Mrs.  Hooper  afterwards.  At  any  rate,  when  Mr.  Pickering  went 
to  Connolly  to  buy  the  property,  he  having  told  him  some  time  that 
he  would  sell  it  for  $200  an  acre,  Connolly  said  that  that  is  out  of  my 
hands  now,  and  I  cannot  sell  it.  Mrs.  Hooper  has  it.  Mr.  Pickering 
had  a  party  who  was  willing  to  buy  it,  and  would  have  bought  it  at 
$200  an  acre.  That  was  the  offer,  and  that  was  the  refusal  of  the 
offer  that  I  spoke  of.  I  know  nothing  more  about  it,  other  than  what 
Mr.  Pickering  told  me.  That  was  Mrs.  George  W.  Hooper.  C.  A. 
Hooper  owns  the  property  on  the  east  side  of  the  Canada,  and  this 
tract  now  owned  by  Mr.  Beatty  is  on  the  west  side.  The  property  I  553 
have  been  speaking  of  is  the  Beatty  property,  and  is  south  and  east 
of  West  Union  Gulch.  The  Silva  land,  not  the  Spring  Valley  Silva 
land,  is  a  little  piece  of  23  acres  that  we  sold  down  near  Portola  or 
beyond  Woodside.  It  is  a  piece  we  sold  in  February,  1912,  to  McDon- 
ough,  who  owned  land  on  the  east  of  it.  It  was  at  about  $300  an  acre. 

RE-DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.   OLNEY. 

The  Callamoor  tract  was  sold  in  the  latter  part  of  1912  for 
$34,000,  for  36.59  acres.  It  was  a  probate  sale,  and  came  up  for  con- 
firmation January  3,  1913,  and  at  that  time  other  parties  appeared  at 
the  sale  and  raised  the  bid.  The  bidding  continued  until  it  got  up  to 
$39,500,  at  which  time  it  was  knocked  down  to  the  party  who  had  554 
overbid  the  original  purchaser.  The  price  at  which  it  was  finally  sold 
was  $1079.53  an  acre.  It  is  on  the  westerly  slope  of  Twin  Peaks,  quite 
steep  and  inaccessible,  being  hemmed  in  by  other  properties  there.  The 
Sy2  acres  at  $4000  an  acre,  is  a  better  buy  than  this  property  was  at 
$1000  an  acre.  Taking  the  property  in  Stanford  Heights,  which  lies 
to  the  east  of  the  Hooper  property,  I  don't  know  exactly  what  Mr. 
Steinhart  referred  to,  unless  it  was  the  holdings  of  Wells-Fargo,  and 
if  such  is  the  case,  that  property  is  subdivided.  It  is  in  blocks,  streets 
running  at  right  angles  without  regard  to  topography.  The  property 

155 


Baldwin 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

is  not  protected  by  restrictions  of  any  kind.  A  portion  of  it  runs 
up  to  the  top  of  Mt.  Davidson.  The  balance  is  either  near,  or  in  the 
big  canyon,  which  I  think  is  generally  known  as  the  Glen  Park 
Canyon,  and  probably  is  a  portion  of  the  land  that  the  City  has 
sought  to  acquire  under  condemnation  for  a  reservoir.  Generally 
speaking,  the  Stanford  Heights  property  has  had  its  value  very  seri- 
ously impaired  by  the  mistake  of  subdividing  hillside  property  into 

555  square  blocks,  running  streets  at  right  angles.    Some  of  that  property 
sold,  20  years  ago,  for  more  than  it  could  be  sold  for  today. 

Questioned  by  Master. 

The  Wells-Fargo  that  I  spoke  of  this  morning,  lies  to  the  north 
of  the  8l/2  acre  piece.  That  is,  I  think,  about  32  acres  that  the  City 
bought;  that  property,  I  think,  is  better  than  the  property  on  the 
south  side  of  Corbett  Eoad,  which  is,  as  I  understand  it,  the  property 
which  Mr.  Steinhart  says  can  be  had  at  $2400  an  acre. 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  OLNEY. 

The  City  paid  $2500  an  acre  for  the  last  mentioned  piece. 
Questioned  by  Master. 

That  does  not  include  the  Twin  Peaks,  which  were  bought  re- 
cently at,  I  think,  about  $1000  an  acre. 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  OLNEY. 

In  relation  to  the  Balboa  Tract,  or  15  acres,  purchased  from  the 
German  Benevolent  Society,  the  facts  were  simply  that  we  were  de- 
sirous of  buying  the  property,  if  we  could  get  it  at  what  we  thought 
it  was  worth,  or  what  we  thought  we  could  afford  to  pay  for  it.  We 
never  anticipated  getting  it  for  any  $15,000,  and  I  know  that  Mr. 

556  Steinhart  has  been  misinformed.    I  inquired  the  price,  and  they  asked 
$100,000  for  it.    We  tried  to  buy  it  for  $50,000  but  could  not  do  it, 
and  finally  bought  it  for  $80,000.    I  had  a  number  of  talks  with  Mr. 
Schmidt  about  it.     As  to  offering  or  considering,  or  thinking  for  a 
moment  that  the  property  could  be  bought  for  $15,000  or  $20,000, 
there  is  nothing  in  that.    We  should  have  been  very  glad  to  buy  it 
at  $15,000  or  $20,000  if  it  was  available,  but  no  figure  was  ever  given 
to  me  by  any  body,  except  $100,000,  and  that  came  from  Mr.  Schmidt, 
and  Mr.  Mueller,  the  Secretary  of  the  Association.     That  was  after 
we  had  disposed  of  tract  D,  the  St.  Francis  Wood  property.    We  have 
no  interest  in  any  property  adjoining  that   15  acres.     Baldwin  & 
Howell  have  a  very  small  interest  in  the  Residential  Development  Com- 
pany.    It  amounts  to  a  very  small  fraction  of  the  general  ownership. 

557  Baldwin  &  Howell  bought  the  Balboa  Terrace.    I  bought  it  personally. 

CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  STEINHART 

Baldwin  &  Howell,  or  the  Residential  Development  Company 
had  a  mortgage  on  tract  D. 

156 


SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 
RE-DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  OLNEY. 

I  do  not  think  the  Boswick  property  is  as  good  as  tract  208,  214 
and  202.  It  runs  up  on  to  the  top  of  the  hill,  and  connects  with  the 
other  Hooper  land  to  the  east.  Those  particular  tracts  to  which  you 
refer  are  nearly  all  level,  except  that  portion  of  it  running  back  to 
the  West  Union  Creek.  There  are  not  many  trees  on  it.  There  are 
occasional  oaks  in  a  few  of  the  creeks  or  gullies.  As  you  get  back 
from  the  Canada  Road,  going  east  into  the  hills,  it  is  pretty  rough 
and  rocky  on  top.  You  will  find  some  of  it  rough  on  the  sides,  and 
some  of  it  otherwise.  I  do  not  think,  taking  the  same  distance  back 
from  the  Canada  either  east  or  west,  that  there  is  very  much  differ- 
ence; for  instance,  opposite  208,  running  back  the  same  distance  that  ^Q 
that  does,  I  do  not  know  that  I  would  consider  the  land  on  the  east 
side  of  the  road  any  less  valuable  than  it  is  on  the  west.  The  Boswick 
tract  went  back  to  the  top  of  the  ridge  on  the  east,  but  I  have  not 
been  over  it  for  say  five  or  six  years.  As  I  remember  it,  it  is  some- 
what rough  and  rocky.  There  is  a  good  deal  of  lava  rock  on  top  of 
the  Hooper  tract  up  there.  There  are  a  number  of  acres  that  are 
covered  with  that  hard  lava;  I  suppose  it  is  volcanic  rock.  Some  of 
the  Boswick  property  is,  as  I  recall  it,  affected  to  that  extent. 

FURTHER   RE-CROSS   EXAMINATION    BY    MR.    STEINHART 

In  regard  to  tract  B,  the  Meyerstein  &  Spring  purchase,  I  think 
at  the  time  that  $50,000  was  paid.  From  memory  I  should  say  there 
has  been  paid  at  least  one-half,  and  probably  more  than  that.  Tract 
D,  the  St.  Francis  Wood  tract,  was  $50,000  cash,  and  the  rest  on 
terms.  The  mortgage  ran  to  the  Residential  Development  Company, 
in  which  Baldwin  &  Howell  were  interested  to  some  extent.  Forest  559 
Hill  tract,  I  think,  was  $50,000  cash  also,  and  the  rest  on  time,  which 
has  been  paid.  We  have  co-operated  with  Mason-McDuffie  in  the 
St.  Francis  Wood  proposition,  but  only  as  selling  agents.  We  have 
no  interest  in  the  property  at  all. 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  OLNEY. 

The  deferred  payments  in  all  of  those  cases  drew  interest. 

FURTHER   RE-CROSS   EXAMINATION    BY    MR.    STEINHART 

I  said  that  I  thought  if  208  was  on  the  other  side  of  the  road, 
I  would  value  it  at  about  the  same  price  as  I  would  if  it  was  on 
this  side ;  I  do  not  think  there  is  any  material  difference.  There  might 
be  $25.00  or  $50.00  in  some  of  those  pieces.  560 


157 


Hoag 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

Witness  WALTER  R.  HOAG. 

561  DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  GREENE. 

I  live  in  Burlingame,  and  have  been  in  the  real  estate  business  for 
24  years.  I  started  in  Berkeley,  Alameda  County,  was  employed  by 
Charles  A.  Bailey,  continued  in  business  there  about  three  or  four 
years.  From  there  I  went  to  San  Francisco  as  an  employee  of  McAfee 
Bros.  I  became  office  manager  of  the  firm  about  a  year  after  going 
there,  and  continued  in  that  capacity  until  1904,  when  Mr.  Lansdale 
and  I  purchased  the  interest  of  McAfee  Bros.,  and  conducted  the  busi- 
ness under  the  name  of  Hoag  and  Lansdale.  We  were  associated  for 
about  seven  years  after  that,  or  up  to  about  1911,  and  since  that  time 
my  business  has  been  conducted  under  the  name  of  W.  R.  Hoag  &  Co. 

562  As  a  part  of  our  business,  we  have  been  engaged  in  the  purchase  and 
sale  of  real  estate  in  the  City  and  County  of  San  Francisco,  on  a  com- 
mission basis,  and  also  purchasing  tracts  and  subdividing  them.    Some 
of  the  tracts  in  the  city  that  I  have  been  interested  in  are  tracts  along 
Bakers  Beach ;  the  Presidio  Line ;  different  tracts  along  Golden  Gate 
Park.     I  am  not  now  thoroughly  familiar  with  the  real  estate  situa- 
tion in  San  Francisco,  but  I  used  to  be.     About  fifteen  years  ago  I 
first  became  interested  in  real  estate  in  San  Mateo  County,  and  I 
have  had  occasion  to  become  familiar  with  the  market  value  of  real 
estate  in  the  Peninsula.    My  interests  have  been  largely  in  real  estate 
in  San  Mateo  County.    I  have  bought  and  sold  property  there,  and 
have  been  interested  in  the  subdivision  of  property.    Specific  instances, 
Hillsborough  Heights,  Highland  Park,  El  Cerito  Park,  a  tract  of 
land  near  the  Holy  Cross  Cemetery,  which  we  auctioned  off  when  I 
was  with  McAfee  Bros.,  and  Burlingame  Terrace.     I  was  interested 
in  the  Hoag  &  Lansdale  Subdivision,  of  San  Mateo,  but  that  is  further 
down.    I  have  handled  Stanford  Heights,  a  subdivision  of  the  town  of 
Menlo ;  Baywood  Field ;  Stanford  Park  Annex.    There  are  one  or  two 
other  tracts  around  San  Mateo  and  Burlingame  that  I  cannot  quite 

563  remember.    I  have  been  employed  by  institutions  to  appraise  the  values 
of  properties  in  San  Mateo,  but  most  of  my  appraisals  have  been 
for  friends  that  I  have  had  in  the  institutions.     I  have  appraised  for 
the  Hibernia  Bank,  for  the  Bank  of  Italy,  for  the  First  National  Bank 
of  San  Mateo,  for  the  Bank  of  Burlingame,  for  the  Crocker  Bank,  and 
for  several  building  and  loan  societies.     The  first  sale  I  made  on  the 
Peninsula  was  in  Redwood  City.     I-  should  say  about  fifteen  years 
ago.     I  have  known  the  properties  of  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Co., 
surrounding  Lakes  Pilarcitos,  San  Andres  and  Crystal  Springs  for 
a  great  many  years.    For  the  first  three  or  four  years  after  that  first 
purchase  of  fifteen  years  ago,  my  interests  were  confined  largely  to  the 

564  city,  but  since  that  time  have  been  actively  engaged  in  Peninsula  real 
estate,  and  have  been  continually  in  touch  with  the  situation  there, 

158 


Hoag 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

and  had  a  knowledge  of  real  estate  values  during  that  time.  I  know 
the  properties  of  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Co.  situated  on  the  Penin- 
sula, and  known  as  the  watershed  property  of  the  company,  com- 
prising some  22,000  or  23,000  acres.  I  began  riding  horseback  over 
those  properties  about  six  or  seven  years  ago,  and  my  familiarity 
grew  from  that  time  until  the  last  two  or  three  years.  At  the  instance 
of  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Co.,  about  a  year  ago,  I  think,  I  made 
a  definite  appraisal  of  the  value  of  those  properties.  Since  that  time 
I  have  been  on  the  property  nearly  every  week.  I  ride  over  there 
every  Sunday,  and  some  times  two  or  three  times  during  the  week. 
I  have  been  noticing  conditions  from  that  time  especially.  Prior  to 
making  my  detailed  appraisal  and  examination,  I  rode  principally 
through  the  property  that  is  nearest  my  home  in  Burlingame,  but  I 
have  been  riding  practically  nearly  over  all  the  property  at  various  565 
times,  and  after  the  time  at  which  I  was  employed  to  make  an  ap- 
praisal, I  have  made  a  careful  and  thorough  examination  of  the  prop- 
erty and  have  been  on  it  at  different  times  and  for  different  lengths 
of  time.  I  should  say  I  have  been  on  the  property  between  20  and 
30  times  since  I  was  employed,  on  horseback,  in  automobiles,  and  on 
foot,  and  have  made  a  thorough  examination  of  the  different  parts 
of  the  property,  so  that  I  feel  thoroughly  familiar  with  all  of  the 
different  parcels  of  the  property  that  are  situated  within  that  area. 
I  have  made  an  appraisal  of  the  market  value  of  that  property  as  of 
December  31,  1913,  but  did  not  take  into  consideration  any  structures 
located  upon  the  properties  of  the  company.  I  did  not  take  into  con- 
sideration, or  make  any  allowance  for  whatever  value  the  properties 
may  have  for  water  producing  purposes.  I  have  reached  a  deter- 
mination as  to  the  fair  market  value  of  these  properties  as  of  Decem-  566 
ber  31,  1913,  and  I  think  the  property  is  more  suitable  for  residential 
purposes,  omitting  the  present  use  of  it,  than  for  any  other.  I  am 
not  taking  into  consideration  that  the  lands  are  watershed  lands,  or 
that  there  are  reservoirs  on  the  property,  and  have  not  valued  the 
land  that  is  covered  with  water.  My  total  valuation  for  the  proper-  567 
ties,  excluding  what  is  known  as  the  Phelps  Tract,  is  $2,801,940.30. 
Including  the  Phelps  Tract,  it  is  $2,923,182.80.  In  reaching  this  final 
valuation  of  the  entire  tract,  I  followed  this  method:  I  was  "given 
maps  by  the  company.  Upon  these  maps  were  shown  various  parcels. 
I  valued  the  different  parcels  of  land,  and  my  total  valuation  is  the 
sum-total  of  these  different  parcels.  I  did  not  value  the  property 
without  taking  into  consideration  the  different  separate  parcels.  The 
value  which  I  have  placed  on  each  of  these  separate  parcels  repre- 
sents the  amount  for  which  those  parcels  would  have  sold  in  the  open 
"  market  on  December  31,  1913.  I  have  made  no  allowance  in  my 
valuation  for  the  fact  that  the  reservoirs  of  the  water  company  are 
at  present  where  they  are,  and  that  they  are  filled  with  water. 

Referring  to  detailed  appraisement  of  these  various  properties        568 

159 


Hoag 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

in  San  Mateo  County,  taking  them  up  in  the  order  in  which  the  par- 
cels are  numbered,  etc.,  first  take  up  parcel  2,  on  maps  2  and  3. 

My  values  are  without  considering  the  fact  that  the  lake  is 
there,  but  the  lake  being  there,  I  would  value  it  higher  on  that  account. 

569  Parcel  on  maps  2  and  3,  40  acres,  on  easterly  slope  of  the  saddle, 
between  Fifield  and  Cahill  Ridge;  location  of  settling  pond;  most 
all  of  this  piece  is  steep ;  portions  finely  timbered  with  oak  and  pine 
trees.     It  runs  into  Pilarcitos  Lake,  and  has  a  watershed  area  of 
20.40  acres.    I  have  placed  a  value  upon  that  of  $75  per  acre,  total 
$1530. 

Parcel  3,  map  3,  41.75  acres  of  watershed,  at  $25  per  acre,  total 
$1043.75.  On  the  easterly  slope  of  Montara  Mountains,  east  of  Scar- 
boro  Peak,  bottom  of  canyon  steep  and  heavily  timbered. 

Parcel  4,  map  3,  4  acres  of  watershed,  portals  of  tunnels,  $100 
per  acre,  $400. 

Parcel  5,  map  3,  23.60  acres  in  the  watershed,  $75  per  acre,  total 
$1770.  On  the  westerly  slope  of  Cahill  Ridge,  northwest  corner  in- 
cludes the  most  southerly  point  of  the  Spring  Valley  Ridge,  balance 
on  slope,  steep  except  on  top. 

Parcel  5-1,  map  3,  31.62  acres,  includes  saddle  between  Fifield 
and  Cahill  Ridges,  runs  to  east  frontage  of  Pilarcitos  Lake,  and  takes 
in  the  southerly  top  of  Fifield  Ridge.  28.33  acres  in  the  watershed ; 
valued  at  $75  per  acre,  total  $2124.75. 

TENTH  HEARING.  JULY  27,  1915. 

Witness  WALTER  R.  HOAG. 

570  DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  GREENE. 

I  purchased  Hillsboro  Heights,  20  acres ;  Highland  Park,  22  acres ; 
Stanford  Park,  87  acres;  Baywood  Field,  100  acres;  Stanford  Park 
Annex,  30  acres;  and  also  the  Hoag  &  Lansdale  Subdivision  of  the 

571  Town  of  Menlo  of  about  15  acres.    I  handled  El  Cerito  Park,  a  tract 
of  a  little  over  100  acres.    These  tracts  I  took  and  developed.    I  sold 
some  of  them  off,  and  am  attempting  to  sell  some  of  them  now.    Mezes 
Tract,  which  is  a  large  tract  near  Belmont,  I  had  something  to  do  with 
when  I  was  with  McAfee  Bros.    Most  of  these  tracts  are  east  of  the 
lands  of  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Co.,  but  are  not  contiguous  thereto. 
I  am  familiar  with  the  sales,  both  wholesale  and  retail,  of  real  prop- 
erty in  San  Mateo  County  for  about  fifteen  years. 

572  The  23,000  acres  of  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Co.,  if  it  were  pur- 
chased outright,  could  be  used  for  residential  sites  for  homes  of  wealthy 
men,  large  country  estates.    I  think  that  would  probably  be  the  best 
way  in  which  the  property  could  be  sold,  and  would  be  an  attractive 
proposition  from  a  real  estate  point  of  view. 

160 


Hoag 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

The  tract  owned  by  Mr.  Edward  Howard,  on  the  easterly  slope, 
186  acres,  was  turned  over  to  me  two  months  before  his  death  for  me 
to  develop  and  subdivide  it.  My  experience  has  been  both  as  acreage 
property,  and  with  subdivision  property. 

Parcel  5-2,  maps  2  and  3 ;  this  includes  the  beautiful  Pilarcitos  573 
Creek  and  stone  dam,  takes  in  the  east  slope  of  Montara  Mountains, 
and  west  slope  of  Cahill  Ridge.  Most  southerly  very  steep  and  rug- 
ged, central  portion  around  lake  contains  beautiful  knolls  and  fine 
timber.  Easterly  slope  of  Montara  Mountains  in  central  portion  cov- 
ered with  low  brush,  grease- wood,  and  bear-berry;  some  of  this  slope 
is  farming  land.  Northerly  end  contains  the  valley  of  the  west  arm 
of  Pilarcitos  Lake,  the  Spring  Valley  Kidge  and  Valley,  and  runs  to 
the  top  of  the  Fifield  Ridge.  There  are  2921.32  acres.  In  the  water- 
shed there  are  2852.82  acres.  I  value  that  property  at  $60  an  acre, 
total  $171,169.20. 

Parcel  6,  map  3,  northerly  slope  of  Ox  Hill  on  top  of  Montara 
Mountain,  very  steep  on  the  sides,  more  level  in  the  center;  has  stand- 
ing timber.  80  acres  watershed,  value  $25  per  acre,  total  $2,000. 

Parcel  7,  map  2,  160.40  acres  in  the  watershed;  on  easterly  end 
of  Whiting  Ridge ;  contains  two  draws  of  the  valley  at  the  head  of  the 
westerly  arm  of  Pilarcitos  Lake ;  balance  pasture  land ;  value  $40  per 
acre ;  total  $6416. 

Parcel  8,  map  2 ;  on  Whiting  Ridge ;  both  slopes  very  steep ;  160 
acres,  $20  per  acre,  $3200. 

Parcel  9,  map  2,  top  of  Montara  Mountains,  steep  and  rugged; 
has  patches  of  farming  land ;  58.25  acres,  $20  per  acre,  $1165. 

Parcel  12,  map  2,  spur  of  Sweeney  Ridge,  running  into  San  An- 
dres Lake,  forming  circular  knoll  with  rather  steep  slope  covered  with 
poor  timber.     181.09  acres;  watershed  102.79  acres,  at  $60  per  acre,        574 
total  $6167.40. 

CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.   STEINHART. 

The  acreages  in  and  out  of  the  watershed  are  given  on  informa- 
tion furnished  me  by  the  company. 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY   MR.    GREENE. 

Parcel  13,  map  2,  triangular  piece  on  easterly  slope  of  Sweeney 
Ridge,  extending  to  San  Andres  Lake,  steep  and  brushy.  Watershed 
332.74  acres,  $60  per  acre,  total  $19,964.40. 

Parcel  13,  map  2,  is  in  three  pieces,  gently  sloping  knoll  on  the 
westerly  side  of  San  Andres  Lake ;  foot  of  east  slope  of  Sweeney  Ridge ; 
59.95  acres ;  27.41  acres  in  the  watershed,  $300  per  acre,  $8223. 

Map  2,  parcel  13,  southerly  end  of  spur  between  two  northerly       575 
arms  of  San  Andres  Lake;  sloping  piece,  15.15  acres  in  watershed, 
$300  per  acre,  $4545.     I  have  valued  three  parcels  there;  the  first 
332.74  acres  of  watershed,  at  $19,964.40,  the  second  containing  15.15 
acres,  at  $545,  and  the  third  27.41  acres,  at  $8223. 

161 


Hoag 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

Map  2,  parcel  14,  easterly  slope  of  north  end  of  Sawyer  Ridge, 
running  to  San  Andres  Lake;  prominent  knolls  separated  by  steep 
ravine;  234.56  total;  in  watershed  155.26  acres,  $60  per  acre, 
$10,515.60. 

Map  2,  parcel  15,  westerly  slope  at  north  end  of  Buri  Buri  Ridge ; 
runs  to  San  Andres  Lake ;  gently  sloping ;  total  acres  153.75 ;  water- 
shed 143.35  acres,  at  $275  per  acre,  $39,421.25. 

Map  2,  parcel  16,  on  westerly  slope  of  Buri  Buri  Ridge,  running 
to  lake;  location  of  keeper's  cottage;  some  meadow  land;  balance 
rather  steep ;  67.61  acres,  at  $275  per  acre,  $18,592.75. 

Map  2,  parcel  17,  westerly  slope  of  Buri  Buri  Ridge,  running  to 
San  Andres  Lake,  17.39  acres,  at  $275  per  acre,  $4782.25. 

576  Map  2,  parcel  18,  located  between  the  two  northerly  arms  of  San 
Andres  Lake;  gently  sloping;  53.36  acres,  $275  per  acre,  $14,674. 

Map  2,  parcel  18,  westerly  slope  of  Buri  Buri  Ridge,  running  to 
San  Andres  Lake,  not  steep ;  30.19  acres,  $275  per  acre,  $8302.25. 
Questioned  by  Mr.  McCutchen. 
There  are  two  parcels  marked  18  on  that  map. 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY   MR.   GREENE. 

Map  2,  parcel  19,  westerly  slope  of  Buri  Buri  Ridge,  to  San  An- 
dres Lake ;  has  cypress  and  eucalyptus  trees ;  oak  trees  on  projecting 
knoll,  fine  view  north  and  south;  portions  command  Bay  view.  43.12 
acres,  $275  per  acre,  $11,858. 

Map  2,  parcel  20,  westerly  slope  of  Buri  Buri  Ridge  to  San  An- 
dres Lake ;  cypress  trees  in  westerly  part ;  watershed  16.90  acres,  $275 
per  acre,  $4647.50. 

Map  2,  parcel  21,  top  of  Buri  Buri  Ridge,  and  steep  westerly 
slope  to  San  Andres  Lake ;  gulch  with  oak  trees ;  20.72  acres,  at  $275 
per  acre,  $5698. 

Map  3,  parcel  25,  westerly  slope  of  Cahill  Ridge ;  steep  side  hill, 
low  brush,  part  wooded,  runs  down  to  Pilarcitos  Creek;  27.23  acres. 
$25  per  acre,  $680.75. 

Map  3,  parcel  27 ;  six  triangular  pieces  on  westerly  slope  of  Ca- 
hill Ridge.  Very  steep ;  67.49  acres,  $40  per  acre,  $2699.60. 

Map  2,  parcel  28,  top  of  Montara  Mountains,  some  land  very 
rough  and  steep,  but  contains  patches  of  farming  land;  235.76  acres, 
$25  per  acre,  $5894. 

Map  2,  parcel  28,  on  Montara  Mountains;  high  ridge  running 
north-easterly ;  very  badly  cut  up ;  160.40  acres,  $15  per  acre,  $2406. 

Map  3,  parcel  29,  on  westerly  slope  of  Montara  Mountains ;  steep 

577  hillside,  low  brush,  pasture  land ;  824.56  acres,  $20  per  acre,  $16,491.20. 

Map  3,  parcel  33,  on  westerly  slope  of  Montara  Mountains ;  pasture 
land ;  top  has  ridge  with  steep  sides ;  most  all  rough  land ;  153.50  acres, 
at  $20  per  acre,  $3070. 

162 


Hoag 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

Map  2,  parcel  34,  top  of  Montara  Mountains ;  rough  pasture  land ; 
steep  and  cut  up ;  patches  of  farming  land ;  58.84  acres,  at  $30  an  acre, 
$1765.20. 

Map  3,  parcel  36,  constitutes  spur  at  northerly  end  of  Pulgas 
Ridge  at  Crystal  Springs  Dam;  Crystal  Springs  Road  runs  through 
easterly  portion ;  beautiful  property ;  fine  timber ;  slopes  to  north  and 
west;  steep  and  covered  with  timber;  103.14  acres,  $500  per  acre, 
$51,570. 

Map  4,  parcel  37,  westerly  slope  of  Pulgas  Ridge  to  lake ;  fairly 
level  on  top  and  near  lake ;  350.43  acres,  $175  per  acre,  $61,325.25. 

Map  3,  parcel  38,  projecting  knoll  opposite  Crystal  Springs  Dam; 
23.82  acres,  $500  per  acre,  $11,910. 

Map  3,  parcel  39,  includes  Sawyer  Ridge  and  top  of  Cahill  Ridge ; 
takes  in  part  of  San  Mateo  Creek;  westerly  slope  of  Sawyer  Ridge, 
steep  in  parts.  Has  some  building  sites.  Easterly  slope  of  Cahill 
Ridge  very  steep ;  finely  timbered ;  top  of  northerly  portion  of  Sawyer 
Ridge,  farming  lands;  southerly  portion  of  Sawyer  Ridge  covered 
with  timber  and  brush.  Of  great  scenic  beauty.  Top  of  Cahill  Ridge 
farming  land  on  easterly  slope.  Sawyer  Ridge  has  some  nice  knolls 
fronting  lake ;  2094.05  acres,  $100  per  acre,  $209,405. 

Map  3,  parcel  40,  on  easterly  slope  of  Sawyer  Ridge ;  fairly  steep, 
some  knolls ;  9.33  acres,  $250  per  acre,  $2332.50. 

Map  3,  parcel  41,  on  easterly  slope  of  Sawyer  Ridge,  from  top  of 
ridge  to  Crystal  Springs  Lake.  Flat  on  top.  Fairly  level  at  bottom, 
steep  between,  and  timbered.  42.45  acres,  $150  per  acre,  $6367.50.  57.8 

Map  2,  parcel  42,  on  westerly  slope  of  Buri  Buri,  near  San  An- 
dres Dam,  adjoining  property  with  cottage ;  runs  down  to  creek.  Has 
willow  trees  in  bottom ;  oak  and  laurel  on  slope ;  22.38  acres,  at  $275 
per  acre,  $6154.50. 

Map  2,  parcel  43,  three  triangular  pieces  along  northerly  boun- 
dary line  of  Spring  Valley  property;  small  valley  in  center;  balance 
very  rugged  and  steep.  Central  triangle  head  waters  of  San  Mateo 
Creek;  311.69  acres,  $15  per  acre,  $4675.35. 

There  are  two  parcels  numbered  43,  and  that  is  the  first  one. 

Map  2,  parcel  43,  on  westerly  slope  of  Fifield  Ridge ;  very  steep ; 
rough  pasture  land.  80  acres,  $20  per  acre,  $1600. 

Map  4,  parcel  44,  timbered  island  in  Crystal  Springs  Lake,  op- 
posite cottage.  Has  meadow  land ;  9.46  acres,  at  $350  per  acre,  $3311. 

Map  4,  parcel  45,  on  westerly  side  of  Crystal  Springs  Lake,  Can- 
ada Road  passes  through  it;  open  country;  timbered  with  laurel,  oak 
and  Buckeye  trees;  147.47  acres,  $350  per  acre,  $51,614.50. 

Map  4,  parcel  46,  on  easterly  slope  of  Cahill  Ridge  running  to 
lake ;  some  oak  timber  on  northeasterly  corner,  balance  bare  rolling 
land  rising  from  lake.  150.43  acres,  $250  per  acre,  $37,607.50. 

Map  4,  parcel  47,  on  easterly  slope  of  Cahill  Ridge ;  two  promin- 
ent knolls,  divided  by  Crystal  Springs  Road  at  upper  Crystal  Springs 
Dam;  49.25  acres,  $300  per  acre,  $14,775. 

163 


Hoag 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

Map  4,  parcel  48,  westerly  slope  of  Pulgas  Ridge;  property  on 

579  westerly  portion  is  meadow  land  with  knolls;  some  timber  in  the 
southerly  portion,  but  bare  of  timber  along  lake,  except  in  ravines  near 
Crystal  Springs  cottage ;  easterly  portion  high  plateau,  with  prominent 
knoll ;  fine  view.    925.88  acres,  $175  per  acre,  $162,029. 

Map  4,  parcel  49,  on  easterly  slope  of  Cahill  Ridge;  splendid, 
large  oak  trees  on  easterly  portion  in  the  valley;  fairly  good  timber 
on  the  steep  central  slope ;  farming  land  on  ridge.  643.90  acres,  $175 
per  acre,  $112,682.50. 

Map  4,  parcel  50,  Canada  Road  runs  through  the  central  por- 
tion ;  series  of  knolls  covered  with  very  fine,  heavy  timber.  Fine  oaks 
and  laurels.  Dips  down  on  northerly  frontage;  valley  on  northerly 
boundary,  with  redwood  trees.  310.90  acres,  $350  per  acre,  $108,815. 

Map  2,  parcel  51,  bottom  land  at  head  of  east  arm  of  San  Andres 
Lake,  17.52  acres,  $300  per  acre,  $5256. 

Map  2,  parcel  52,  mouth  of  small  creek  on  northerly  slope  of  Saw- 
yer Ridge,  fronting  on  San  Andres  Lake,  nearly  level,  1.03  acres,  $300 
per  acre,  $309. 

Map  2,  parcel  53,  gentle  slope  at  head  of  east  arm  of  San  Andres 
Lake.  5.18  acres,  $300  per  acre,  $1554. 

Map  4,  parcel  54,  divided  by  Crystal  Springs  Road;  nicely  tim- 
bered ;  live  oak  trees ;  fairly  level  on  top ;  rather  steep  up  from  lake ; 
fine  building  sites ;  64.32  acres,  $400  per  acre,  $25,728. 

Map  4,  parcel  55,  runs  from  Canada  Road  east  to  division  line  in 
lake;  two  knolls  covered  with  heavy  timber.  24.70  acres,  $300  per 
acre,  $7,410. 

Map  3,  parcel  59,  on  easterly  slope  of  Sawyer  Ridge,  running  to 

580  Crystal  Springs  Lake ;  nicely  timbered.   6.18  acres,  $350  per  acre,  $2163. 

Map  3,  parcel  60,  top  of  Montara  Mountains,  takes  in  Ox  Hill; 
low  brush ;  some  standing  timber,  240  acres  at  $20  per  acre,  $4,800. 

Map  3,  parcel  60,  on  westerly  slope  Montara  Mountains ;  pasture 
land ;  3.80  acres  at  $20  per  acre,  $76. 

Map  3,  parcel  62,  northerly  slope  Pulgas  Ridge,  running  across 
San  Mateo  Creek;  top  fairly  level;  northerly  and  easterly  slopes 
precipitous;  heavily  wooded;  43.17  acres  at  $150  per  acre,  $6,475.50. 

Maps  3  and  4,  parcel  68,  on  the  easterly  slope  of  Cahill  Ridge; 
very  steep ;  40  acres  at  $25  per  acre,  $1,000. 

Maps  3  and  4,  parcel  68,  on  easterly  slope  of  Cahill  Ridge ;  very 
steep ;  51.65  acres  at  $60  per  acre,  $3438.60. 

(There  are  five  pieces  in  the  parcel  numbered  68.) 

Maps  3  and  4,  parcel  68,  on  easterly  slope  of  Cahill  Ridge; 
bisected  by  Crystal  Springs  road ;  some  farming  land  on  top  of  ridge 
south  of  Crystal  Springs  road ;  balance  steep  and  rocky.  116.08  acres 
at  $35  per  acre,  $4062.80. 

Maps  3  and  4,  parcel  68 ;  westerly  line  does  not  go  to  top  of 
ridge;  pretty  steep  to  center,  and  then  good  to  lake;  south  arm 
rocky ;  pasture  land.  174.50  acres  at  $125  per  acre,  $21,812.50. 

164 


Hoag 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

Maps  3  and  4,  parcel  68,  easterly  slope  of  Cahill  Ridge;  very 
steep  in  central  portion;  some  very  pretty  gently  sloping  knolls  on 
Crystal  Springs  Lake;  flat  and  bare  on  top;  farming  land.  441.88 
acres  at  $150  per  acre,  $66,282. 

(Here  ensued  a  discussion  as  to  what  map  the  different  parcels  581 
68  are  on.  The  small  piece  5.66  acres  is  included  in  parcel  68  in  the 
parcel  that  has  51.65  acres,  and  is  on  map  4.  The  piece  of  116.08 
acres  is  on  map  4.  The  piece  of  174.50  acres  is  on  map  4,  and  shown 
as  196.80  acres.  The  piece  of  441.88  acres  is  the  remaining  piece  on 
maps  3  and  4,  running  between  them.  The  remaining  piece  of  68 
acres  in  pink  on  map  3  is  not  testified  to  for  the  reason  that  it  is 
reservoir  land,  and  is  not  in  the  watershed  at  all.) 

Questioned  by  Mr.  Searls  and  Mr.  Steinhart. 

I  think  that  the  5.66  acre  piece,  running  down  from  the  second 
number  68  on  map  4,  must  be  the  little  rectangular  piece  running 
down  to  the  lake,  but  it  is  included  in  parcel  68,  and  valued  at  $60. 
That  is  the  piece  immediately  south  of  45. 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  GREENE.  582 

Map  3,  parcel  72,  narrow  strip  of  land  at  the  northern  end  of 
Crystal  Springs  Lake ;  very  pretty  property.  8.80  acres  at  $500  per 
acre,  $4400. 

Map  3,  parcel  73,  on  westerly  slope  of  Buri  Buri  Ridge  to  Crystal 
Springs  Lake ;  fine  building  knolls  with  pleasing  timber ;  very  access- 
ible property.  276.45  acres  at  $500  per  acre,  $138,225. 

Map  3,  parcel  89,  takes  in  portion  of  southerly  end  of  Sawyer 
Ridge ;  heavily  timbered  on  both  slopes ;  commands  fine  scenic  view. 
47.06  acres  at  $350  per  acre,  $16,471. 

Referring  to  parcels  59  and  89,  I  concluded  that  those  numbers       583 
were  in  this  parcel  marked  in  yellow ;  I  valued  them,  as  I  remember 
it,  exactly  the  same.    I  remember  now  that  in  valuing  that  I  could 
not  find  the  two  separate  parcels. 

(Mr.  Greene :  It  is  my  recollection  that  there  should  have  been 
a  division  line.  That  is  one  of  the  errors  in  this  map.) 

Map  3,  parcel  90,  on  westerly  slope  of  Buri  Buri  Ridge ;  fairly 
level  on  top ;  sloping  to  Crystal  Springs  Lake ;  very  southerly  por- 
tion nicely  wooded ;  central  portion  jutting  timbered  knolls  into  the 
lake;  northerly  end  wooded  in  the  ravines;  building  sites  near  lake. 
856.10  acres  at  $400  per  acre,  $342,440. 

Map  3,  parcel  91,  on  northerly  slopes  of  Pulgas  Ridge;  level 
on  top;  slopes  very  steep  and  precipitous;  heavily  wooded.  28.55 
acres  at  $150  per  acre,  $4282.50. 

Map  3,  parcel  92,  southerly  end  of  Sawyer  Ridge ;  takes  in  part 
of  lake  arm  of  San  Mateo  Creek;  runs  across  to  easterly  slope  of 
Cahill  Ridge ;  prettily  timbered ;  beautiful  scenery.  31.31  acres,  $450 
per  acre,  $14,089.50. 

165 


Hoag 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

Map  3,  parcel  94,  on  easterly  slope  of  Sawyer  Ridge.  4.95  acres, 
at  $300  per  acre,  $1485. 

584  Map  4,  parcel  96,  on  easterly  slope  of  Cahill  Ridge  running  to 
Crystal  Springs  Lake ;  nicely  situated  on  lake ;  oaks,  wild  cherry  and 
laurel  trees;   steep  in  westerly   portion;   12.20   acres   at   $300   per 
acre,  $3660. 

Map  3,  parcel  97,  on  easterly  slope  of  Sawyer  Ridge  to  lake ;  has 
draw  from  lake  with  two  prominent  knolls.  68.09  acres,  at  $250  an 
acre,  $17,022.50. 

Map  2,  parcel  101,  on  the  Montara  Mountains;  draw  through 
this  piece;  very  steep;  rough  pasture  land.  240  acres  at  $15  per 
acre,  $3,600. 

Map  2,  parcel  102,  on  Fifield  Ridge,  with  westerly  spur;  steep 
and  cut  up.  160  acres  at  $25  per  acre,  $4,000. 

Map  2,  parcel  104,  runs  from  easterly  slope  of  Fifield  Ridge  to 
Whiting  and  Spring  Valley  Ridges,  one-third  of  the  south-westerly 
quarter  farming  lands ;  northwest  quarter  gulch ;  fairly  good  in  bot- 
tom; balance  pasture  land.  327.90  acres  at  $40  per  acre,  $13,116. 

Map  2,  parcel  106,  takes  in  the  ridge  and  the  valley  of  the  two 
arms  of  Pilarcitos  Lake,  and  easterly  slope  of  Montara  Mountains; 
runs  almost  to  top  of  Fifield  Ridge;  south-westerly  portion  good 
soil;  ridge  is  farming  land;  east  slope  of  ridge  good;  west  slope  is 
fair;  top  soil  good.  295.90  acres  at  $60  per  acre,  $17,754. 

Map  3,  parcel  110,  on  easterly  slope  of  Sawyer  Ridge.  2.10  acres 
at  $250  per  acre,  $525. 

Map  4,  parcel  122,  on  easterly  slope  of  Cahill  Ridge;  rolling 
land ;  has  been  farmed ;  has  new  growth  of  cypress  and  pine  trees ; 
flat  in  easterly  portion.  117.48  acres  at  $75  per  acre,  $8811. 

585  Map  3,  parcel  124,  on  the  easterly  slope  of  Montara  Mountains ; 
part  of  canyon,  brush  and  standing  timber  on  sidehill.     165  acres, 
at  $25  per  acre,  $4125. 

Map  3,  parcel  128,  on  westerly  slope  of  Montara  Mountains; 
flat  on  top,  balance  very  steep.  40  acres  at  $20  per  acre,  $800. 

Map  3,  parcel  128,  westerly  slope  of  Montara  Mountains.  7.93 
acres  at  $20  an  acre,  $158.60. 

Map  2,  parcel  130,  northerly  end  of  Sawyer  Ridge;  easterly 
portion  takes  in  property  near  San  Andres  Lake;  balance  of  this 
slope  very  steep ;  Fifield  Valley  in  the  southerly  portion ;  said  valley 
running  westerly  in  the  central  portion  to  the  central  portion  of 
parcel  43,  farming  lands.  390.04  acres  at  $60  per  acre,  $23,402.40. 

Map  4,  parcel  132,  easterly  slope  of  Cahill  Ridge ;  brush  run- 
ning up  into  it,  with  fair  timber.  340  acres  at  $50  per  acre,  $17,000. 

Map  4,  parcel  132,  on  easterly  slope  of  Cahill  Ridge ;  very  steep 
and  rugged;  poor  land.  165.75  acres  at  $20  per  acre,  $3,315. 

Map  4,  parcel  132,  Canada  road  passes  through  the  north- 
easterly corner ;  big  gulch  nicely  timbered ;  cypress,  laurel,  oak, 

166 


Hoag 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

eucalyptus  trees  in  the  north-easterly  corner ;  160  acres  at  $125  per 
acre,  $20,000. 

Map  4,  parcel  134,  steep  easterly  slope  of  Cahill  Ridge.  52  acres 
at  $40  per  acre,  $2080. 

Map  4,  parcel  134,  running  from  top  of  Cahill  Ridge  down  on 
easterly  slope;  flat  on  top;  good  farming  land.  148.92  acres  at  $40 
per  acre,  $5956.80. 

Map  3,  parcel  138,  on  Montara  Mountains ;  very  steep  and  rough ; 
flat  on  patch  in  southerly  portion.  320  acres  at  $20  per  acre,  $6400. 

Map  2,  parcel  144,  sloping  ridge  between  two  extended  arms       586 
of  San  Andres  Lake ;  sheltered ;  flat  on  top ;  some  valley  land  on  the 
easterly  boundary.     152.43  acres  at  $250  per  acre,  $38,107.50. 

Map  2,  parcel  146,  westerly  slope  of  Fifield  Ridge  running  to 
bottom  of  canyon.  15.89  acres  at  $30  per  acre,  $476.70. 

Map  2,  parcel  163,  Sawyer  Ridge,  Fifield  Valley  and  Fifield 
Ridge ;  portion  of  Spring  Valley  Ridge ;  includes  easterly  slope ;  very 
steep  and  timbered.  Sawyer  Ridge  farming  land ;  flat  on  top ;  Fifield 
Valley  farming  land.  1066.11  acres  at  $75  per  acre,  $79,958.25. 

Map  5,  parcel  164,  on  westerly  slope  of  Pulgas  Ridge ;  southerly 
portions  series  of  prettily  timbered  knolls,  with  the  exception  of 
two  high  hills ;  fine  view ;  northerly  portion  level  with  rising  land  on 
the  east,  with  wooded  ravines;  has  some  valley  in  the  easterly  por- 
tion. 429.20  acres  at  $225  per  acre,  $96,570. 

Map  3,  parcel  182,  easterly  slope  of  Sawyer  Ridge ;  timbered 
and  sloping  to  lake;  projecting  knoll.  34.45  acres  at  $250  an  acre, 
$8,612.50. 

Map  4,  parcel  190,  on  east  slope  Cahill  Ridge ;  two  valleys  on 
north  and  south  boundaries;  pine  knoll  between;  balance  steep; 
slope  on  top  one-fifth  farming  land.  449.19  acres  at  $125  per  acre, 
$56,148.75. 

Map  5,  parcel  194,  on  easterly  slope  of  Cahill  Ridge;  fine  tim- 
bered knolls  on  the  easterly  portion ;  central  portion  steep  with  low 
brush ;  westerly  portion  nicely  timbered.  1059.87  acres  at  $150  per 
acre,  $158,980.50. 

Map  5,  parcel  195,  on  easterly  slope  of  Cahill  Ridge;  flat  at 
Canada  road ;  then  series  of  beautifully  timbered  knolls  commanding 
fine  view;  good  timber  on  top  of  ridge.  503.30  acres  at  $175  per 
acre,  $88,077.50. 

Map  2,  parcel  196,  on  Fifield  Ridge,  near  northerly  boundary       587 
line;  westerly  portion  pasture  land;  central  portion  farming  land; 
east  bare  low  brush.    80  acres  at  $30  per  acre,  $2400. 

Map  4,  parcel  199,  on  top  of  Cahill  Ridge  near  Crystal  Springs 
road ;  three  pieces ;  the  first  piece  is  44.10  acres,  at  $75  acre,  $3,307.50. 

The  second  piece  is  4.96  at  $75  per  acre,  $372. 

The  third  piece  is  1.47  acres  at  $75  per  acre,  $110.25. 

167 


Hoag 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

Map  5,  parcel  202,  on  westerly  slope  of  Pulgas  Ridge ;  lervel  and 
rolling  in  front,  with  valley  running  along  southerly  boundary  line ; 
this  valley  is  wooded  on  its  slopes ;  steep  and  rugged  in  rear.  92.73 
acres  at  $160  per  acre,  $14,836.80. 

Map  5,  parcel  202,  westerly  slope  of  Pulgas  Ridge  to  Canada 
road;  rolling  land  in  front;  steep  in  rear;  soil  poor;  with  surface 
boulders;  particularly  bare  of  timber.  60.43  acres  at  $140  per  acre, 
$8,460.20. 

Map  5,  parcel  203,  the  description  is  the  same  as  202.  32.54 
acres  at  $125  per  acre,  $4067.50. 

Map  5,  parcel  202,  on  the  westerly  slope  of  Pulgas  Ridge ;  gently 
rolling;  surface  boulders;  farming  land  in  rear;  level  plateau  in 
center ;  few  nice  oaks  in  rear.  92.73  acres  at  $140  per  acre,  $12,982.20. 

Map  5,  parcel  205,  on  the  easterly  slope  of  Cahill  Ridge;  two 
small  oak  covered  knolls  at  Canada  road ;  this  is  beautiful  property. 
314.30  acres  at  $175  per  acre,  $55,002.50. 

Map  5,  parcel  208,  southerly  parcel  on  Canada  Road;  rolling 
hills,  with  few  white  oaks ;  westerly  portion  goes  over  ridge ;  dips 
down  into  West  Union  Creek ;  timbered  on  westerly  end.  166  acres 
at  $175  per  acre,  $27,300. 

588  Map   5,   parcel   210,  easterly   portion  sloping  toward   Canada 
Road ;  was  vineyard  land ;  now  nearly  bare ;  has  small  creek  in  front 
near  road,  with  willow  trees ;  westerly  portion  crosses  ridge  and  dips 
to  West  Union  Creek;  nicely  timbered.    214  acres  at  $150  per  acre, 
$32,100. 

Map  5,  parcel  211,  easterly  portion  sloping  to  Canada  Road; 
very  pretty  with  new  growth  of  timber ;  redwood  trees ;  good  timber 
on  top  of  Cahill  Ridge.  346.10  acres  at  $160  per  acre,  $55,376.  Map 
5,  parcel  212;  level;  surface  boulders,  brush  and  few  trees;  almost 
at  circle.  10.23  acres  at  $150  per  acre,  $1,534.50. 

Map  2,  parcel  218,  westerly  slope  of  Buri  Buri  Ridge;  small 
valley;  cypress  trees;  22.84  acres  at  $275  per  acre,  $6,281. 

I  have  valued  the  so  called  Phelps  tract  at  $125  per  acre,  969.94 
acres,  total  $121,242.50. 

The  computations  showing  map,  parcel  number,  acres,  value  per 
acre,  total  value,  was  made  under  my  direction. 

589  Offered  and  received  in  evidence  as  "Plaintiff's  Exhibit  25". 
(Mr.  Greene:  Subject  to  correction  the  average  value  per  acre 

of  the  total  of  22,982  acres  is  $127.27  including  the  Phelps  tract  and 
$127.28  excluding  the  Phelps  tract.) 

I  have  tabulated  a  table  showing  the  different  acreages  by 
grouping  together  the  lands  which  are  appraised  by  me  at  $15,  and 
those  at  $20,  and  so  on,  and  this  tabulation,  to  the  best  of  my  knowl- 
edge, is  correct. 

Offered  and  received  in  evidence  as  "Plaintiff's  Exhibit  26". 

168 


Hoag 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

The  22,982  acres  I  have  valued  at  $2,939,352.55  and  in  my 
opinion,  those  properties  could  be  sold  as  an  entirety  for  that  sum. 

There  is  demand  on  the  Peninsula  for  so-called  wild  lands.  My  590 
experience  has  been  that  wealthy  men  are  proud  of  owning  large 
acreage,  and  even  pay  a  fairly  good  price  for  land  that  intrinsically 
is  not  worth  very  much.  It  is  my  opinion  that  the  back  land,  which 
we  have  just  been  considering,  could  be  sold  as  a  portion  of  country 
estates. 

My  remarks  which  have  been  made  as  to  value  are  directed 
toward  the  value  as  of  December  31,  1913. 

The  reporter  here  read  the  description  covering  parcel  46. 
Witness  advised  that  the  description  so  read  is  a  correct  description 
of  that  parcel,  and  that  the  island  referred  to,  is  an  island  in  the 
south-easterly  portion  of  it. 

I  am  familiar  with  certain  other  properties  of  the  Spring  Valley       591 
Water  Co.  which  I  have  examined,  situate  in  the  County  of  San 
Mateo.    Have  determined  the  market  value  of  those  properties  as  of 
December  31,  1913. 

Map  9,  parcel  87,  old  Ocean  View  pump  lot ;  on  easterly  side 
of  Junipero  Boulevard,  south  of  San  Francisco  city  limits ;  adjacent 
to  Southern  Pacific  Railroad ;  7.72  acres,  at  $2500  per  acre,  $19,300. 

Map  8,  parcel  187,  strip  in  Hillcrest  Tract,  partly  in  San  Fran- 
cisco and  partly  in  San  Mateo  County;  contains  .221  of  an  acre  at 
$2500  per  acre,  $552.50. 

Map  8,  parcel  118,  Daly  Hill  Tract,  partly  in  San  Francisco 
and  partly  in  San  Mateo  County.  1.25  acres  at  $2500  per  acre,  $3125. 

Map  9,  parcel  192,  portions  of  lots  11,  12,  13  and  14,  block  2, 
Visitacion,  40  x  60,  $500. 

Map   8,   parcel   35,   Abbey  Homestead   lots;   lot   3,   block   32,        592 
100  x  100,  $500. 

Lot  3,  block  156,  100  x  100,  $225.  Lot  8,  block  171,  100  x  100, 
$225.  Lot  30  x  100  ft.  east  of  and  adjoining  lot  8,  block  171,  $100. 
Lot  70  x  100  ft.,  in  block  171,  corner  Lake  and  Linden,  $200.  Lot  5 
in  block  177,  size  100  x  100,  $225.  Lot  2,  block  176,  size  100  x  100, 
$225.  Lot  8,  block  176,  size  100  x  100,  $225.  Lot  2,  block  185.  size 
100  x  100,  $350.  Total  $2275. 

Map  9,  parcel  186,  lot  "A",  Castle  Tract,  northeast  corner  of 
Price  St.  and  County  Road,  $2750. 

Map  8,  parcel  216,  strip  between  County  Road  and  Southern 
Pacific  Railroad,  near  Baden ;  contains  .45  of  an  acre,  valued  at  .$450. 

Map  8,  parcel  214  and  215,  strip  between  County  Road  and  S.  P. 
Railroad  and  S.  P.  R.  R.,  near  Baden,  3.39  acres  at  $1000  an  acre, 
$3390. 

Map  8,  parcel  127,  strip  between  County  Road  and  S.  P.  R.  R., 
near  Baden,  8.847  acres,  at  $1000  per  acre,  $8847. 

169 


SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

Map  9,  parcel  168,  South  San  Francisco  land,  east  of  S.  P.  Co. 
right  of  way,  lying  on  both  sides  of  county  road,  59.783  acres  at 
$1250  per  acre,  $74,728.75. 

Map  9,  parcel  32,  School  House  Association  property,  containing 
.234  of  an  acre,  at  $1250. 

Map  9,  parcel  133,  of  Millbrae  lands ;  water  tower  lot,  on  county 
road  near  Millbrae  pump  lot,  51.71  acres  at  $1000  per  acre,  $51,710. 

Map  9,  parcel  131,  Millbrae  pump  lot;  lies  between  county  road 

593  and  S.  P.  Ry.  tract  and  electric  car  line ;  has  spur  track  leading  into 
property.    Suitable  for  small  subdivisions.    15.356  acres  at  $1500  per 
acre,  $23,034. 

Map  9,  parcels  24  and  193,  Silva  Tract;  runs  from  county  road 
to  top  of  ridge ;  level  in  front  portion ;  rather  steep  in  rear.  146.251 
acres  at  $600  per  acre,  $87,750.60. 

Map  9,  parcel  95,  Belmont  lands ;  Belmont  pump  lot,  slopes  west- 
erly and  upwards  from  the  county  road;  timbered  in  rear;  suitable 
for  residential  purposes.  44.67  acres  at  $500  per  acre,  $22,335. 

Map  9,  parcel  158,  Belmont  reservoir  lot;  a  fiat  level  piece  of 
land,  with  the  exception  of  a  hill  on  the  northerly  boundary  line, 
with  some  oak  timber.  33.97  acres  at  $400  per  acre,  $13,588. 

Map  7,  parcel  157,  Ravenswood  lands ;  marsh  lands  between  bay 
and  Ravenswood  Creek.  1328.22  acres  at  $50  per  acre,  $66,411. 

Map  7,  parcel  156,  marsh  lands  lying  north  and  east  of  Frisbie 
Tract,  and  fronting  on  San  Francisco  Bay.  285.65  acres  at  $50  an 
acre,  $14,282.50. 

Map  7,  parcel  155,  marsh  lands  fronting  on  San  Francisco  Bay, 
north  of  San  Francisquito  Creek.  191.20  acres  at  $50  per  acre, 
$9,564. 

Map  7,  parcel  154,  Frisbie  Tract ;  high  land  contiguous  to  marsh 
land.  40.85  acres  at  $200,  $8170. 

Map  9,  parcel  129,  San  Mateo  Screen  tank  lot,  fronting  on 
Crystal  Springs  road;  adjacent  to  Templeton  Crocker  home,  "Up- 
lands", size  100  x  200  ft.,  less  30  x  60  ft.,  containing  .42  of  an  acre, 
at  $2500  per  acre,  value  $1050. 

594  The  total  values  of  the  properties  I  have  appraised,  so  far  as 
the  miscellaneous  lots  and  lands  in  the  northern  part  of  San  Mateo 
County  are  concerned,  is  $415,063.35.     (The  segregation  as  to  the 
properties  in  the  northerly  part  of  San  Mateo  County  follows:) 
''Miscellaneous  Lots  and  Lands  in  Northern  part  of  San 

Mateo  County $117,168.25 

Millbrae  Lands 162,494.60 

Belmont  Lands 35,923.00 

Ravenswood  Lands 98,427.50 

San  Mateo  Screen  Tank  Lot 1,050.00 


Grand  Total  $415,063.35" 

170 


Hoag 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS,  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

That  total  is  only  directed  toward  the  total  of  the  properties  to 
which  I  have  just  referred. 

A  table  showing  a  summary  of  the  outside  lands  in  San  Mateo       595 
County,  and  testified  to  as  correct  by  the  witness,  offered  and  ad- 
mitted as  "Plaintiff's  Exhibit  27". 

(Referring  to  parcels  numbered  59  and  89,  on  map  3,  counsel 
for  Plaintiff  explained  that  No.  89  represents  an  undivided  three- 
quarters  interest  in  the  property  outlined  in  yellow,  and  59  repre- 
sents an  undivided  one-quarter  in  the  same  property.  The  acreage 
of  the  total  piece  outlined  in  yellow  will  be  the  sum  of  those  two, 
or  62.07  acres.) 

I  think  the  automobile  has  played  a  great  factor  in  the  last  596 
few  years  in  the  development  of  Burlingame  and  surrounding  terri- 
tories. Property  that  was  not  accessible  five  or  six  years  ago,  is 
now  considered  very  accessible.  The  values  in  the  westerly  portion 
of  the  Peninsula  have  risen.  I  can  go  further  than  that,  and  say  that 
in  some  districts  the  property  close  in  has  decreased  in  value.  The 
population  in  Burlingame  and  in  the  surrounding  property  has 
shown  a  very  material  increase  right  along,  and  as  that  growth  has 
increased,  it  has  been  more  largely  to  the  west  from  the  railroad. 

Questioned  by  the  Master.  597 

In  finding  a  value  for  this  watershed  property,  I  took  the  dif- 
ferent parcels  as  shown  on  the  map,  bearing  in  mind,  of  course,  the 
valuation  of  the  property,  and  presuming  they  would  not  be  sold  as 
they  are  mapped  out.  The  appraised  value  which  I  have  given  as  a 
sale  value,  I  presumed  as  of  1913.  I  think  the  lands  could  be  sold 
just  as  they  are,  either  to  a  single  person,  or  a  coterie  of  men,  who 
would  acquire  the  land,  and  I  think  either  plan  would  be  possible  in 
1913.  My  valuations  are  such  that  I  consider  it  would  take  a  reason- 
able time  to  find  a  market  for  these  properties,  and  when  I  say 
reasonable,  I  mean  taking  into  account  the  magnitude  of  the  lands. 

CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.   STEINHART.  598 

Stanford  Park  is  located  on  San  Francisquito  Creek,  the  south- 
erly end  of  San  Mateo  County;  Stanford  Park  Annex  is  adjoining 
property;  Baywood  Field  is  to  the  east  of  the  Southern  Pacific  line  in 
that  same  country.  It  is  just  east  of  property  in  the  San  Franeisquito 
District,  and  is  east  of  Stanford  Park  and  Stanford  Park  Annex.  I 
have  not  bought  any  other  properties  than  those  mentioned  in  that 
location  since  1906.  Hillsboro  Heights  I  bought  about  a  year  ago; 
Highland  Park  I  bought,  I  would  say,  seven  or  eight  years  ago,  or 
perhaps  longer  than  that.  It  is  built  up  now  altogether  with  homes 
'  and  has  all  been  sold  off.  El  Cerito  was  put  on  the  market  about  599 
1905.  Stanford  Park  Annex  within  the  last  year  or  year  and  a  half. 
Baywood  Field  I  bought  in  1906,  and  sold  off  as  a  whole.  Stanford 
Park  was  never  what  I  would  really  call  put  on  the  market  until 

171 


Hoag 


600 


601 


Gale 


603-604 


605-606 
607 


SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

about  two  years  ago.  These  properties  I  subdivided  into  lots  of  dif- 
ferent sizes.  Stanford  Park  Annex  into  acre  and  half-acre  lots ;  Stan- 
ford Park  into  60,  70  and  80  foot  frontage  lots.  Burlingame  Terrace, 
Hillsboro  Heights,  and  El  Cerito  are  mostly  from  one  to  four  acre 
properties. 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY   MR.    GREENE. 

I  did  not  subdivide  Hayward  Field.    I  sold  that  as  a  whole. 

CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  STEINHART. 

I  am  not  familiar  with  sales  from  Fanciola  to  Righetti,  or  from 
Bernali  to  Wolfe,  or  of  a  sale  from  Scarba  to  Granyer. 

Map  2,  parcel  28,  I  think,  has  235  acres  in  which  there  are  patches 
of  farming  land.  I  do  not  know  how  many  acres  all  told. 

Map  2,  parcel  34;  58  acres,  is  of  the  same  character.  I  do  not 
know  how  many  acres  of  farming  land. 

Map  4,  parcel  45,  takes  in  part  of  an  island.  It  is  not  an  island 
now.  It  is  a  knoll  with  meadow  land  around  it. 

Parcel  46 ;  there  is  wind  there ;  as  you  go  north  from  45  it  becomes 
windier.  There  is  a  gap  there  where  the  fog  and  wind  come  in. 

Map  3,  No.  92 ;  that  piece  is  located  on  the  southerly  end  of  Saw- 
yer Ridge.  There  would  be  two  valleys  on  either  side  of  the  smaller 
portion.  I  will  state  frankly  that  that  is  my  pet  piece  of  the  Spring 
Valley  land.  I  picnicked  there  many  times  and  the  scenery  is  very 
beautiful.  The  southerly  end  of  the  ridge  is  covered  with  beautiful 
oak  trees ;  there  is  quite  an  open  glade  on  the  property.  The  portion 
across  from  what  I  will  say  is  the  lake,  is  a  timbered  knoll,  with  a 
very  beautiful  growth  of  timber  on  it.  I  assumed  in  valuing  the  land 
that  they  were  not  arid  lands,  and  took  it  for  granted  that  the  owner 
would  have  the  right  to  sink  wells  and  use  the  water  in  that  way.  My 
general  method  of  valuation  was  the  same  as  Mr.  Baldwin's. 


ELEVENTH  HEARING. 
Witness  C.  A.  GALE. 


JULY  28,  1915. 


DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.   GREENE. 

Discussion  of  plan  to  have  Defendant's  testimony  produced  on 
the  question  of  land  values  at  the  close  of  Complainant 's  case  on  that 
subject. 

(Certain  corrections  noted  on  the  face  of  the  record.) 
I  live  in  the  town  of  Pleasanton,  Alameda  County,  California. 
Have  lived  there  since  1882.  My  occupation  is  the  practice  of  law  and 
the  real  estate  business.  Have  been  in  the  real  estate  business  for 
myself  since  November,  1905.  Prior  to  1905,  the  firm  of  Harris  & 
Donohue  was  conducting  a  law  and  real  estate  business  there.  I  was 
in  touch  with  the  real  estate  business  they  conducted  at  that  time.  In 
November,  1905,  Judge  Harris  having  retired  from  the  firm,  I  went 

172 


Gale 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

into  the  real  estate  business  as  a  partner  with  Mr.  Donohue.  In  April, 
1906,  I  became  also  his  law  partner.  From  November,  1905,  to  April, 
1906,  was  acting  as  law  clerk  for  Mr.  Donohue.  From  that  time  till 
he  went  on  the  bench,  we  were  associated  in  the  real  estate  and  law 
business  in  Pleasanton.  Since  Judge  Donohue  retired  from  that  asso- 
ciation, I  have  conducted  the  real  estate  business  myself,  and  am 
familiar  with  the  character  of  properties  lying  near  the  town  of  Pleas-  608 
anton,  and  what  is  popularly  known  as  Calaveras  Valley,  and  around 
Sunol,  the  Arroyo  Valle,  the  San  Antonio  Valley,  and  at  Niles.  Have 
bought  and  sold  a  great  many  of  those  properties.  Some  several  times, 
and  up  until  the  last  year  every  sale  and  transfer  was  made  in  my 
office ;  parties  selling  properties  would  come  to  the  office  to  have  deeds 
drawn,  and  I  made  it  a  particular  point  to  ascertain  the  purchase  and 
selling  price,  and  all  the  facts  concerning  the  sale  in  order  to  keep 
posted  on  properties  in  that  locality.  I  know,  I  think,  every  foot  of 
property  surrounding  Pleasanton,  and  a  great  deal  about  the  prop- 
erties in  Calaveras,  San  Antonio,  Sunol,  and  Arroyo  Valle. 

I  have  not  bought  or  sold  any  properties  in  Calaveras,  San  An- 
tonio or  Arroyo  Valle,  but  properties  surrounding  Pleasanton  I  have 
bought  and  sold,  and  also  property  running  toward  Sunol;  not  in  the  609 
town  of  Sunol.  Properties  immediately  surrounding  Pleasanton  are 
being  used  for  beet  raising,  alfalfa,  dairying,  hay  and  grain,  truck 
gardens. 

Questioned  by  Master. 

They  were  used  for  hops  at  one  time.  The  hop  fields  were  re- 
moved some  three  years  ago.  I  believe  they  were  removed  about  a  year 
prior  to  the  time  of  making  this  appraisement. 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR..   GREENE. 

I  make  all  appraisements  for  the  Bank  of  Pleasanton  on  proper- 
ties upon  which  they  intend  making  loans ;  also  make  all  the  appraise- 
ments for  the  Pleasanton  Mutual  Building  &  Loan  Association;  have 
represented  for  a  number  of  years  the  lands  known  as  the  Dougherty 
Estate.  Up  until  1913  there  were  about  between  13,000  and  15,000 
acres  in  the  Dougherty  Estate;  portions  of  it  have  been  sold  oft*  at 
different  times.  When  I  took  hold  of  the  property  there  were  about  610 
15,000  acres,  and  all  of  the  lands  that  have  been  sold  since  1907  I 
made  the  sales  of.  At  one  time  our  office  handled  the  Chabot  land  of 
1100  acres,  now  the  property  of  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Co. 

Have  handled  the  Neal  Estate  of  some  200  odd  acres  since  1905, 
and  aside  from  these  properties,  have  sold  land  myself  in  and  near 
Pleasanton. 

I  have  here  a  rough  memorandum  of  some  of  the  properties  I  have 
«old.  -Not  a  complete  list:  7500  acres  of  the  Dougherty  property  to 
the  Tassajero  Land  Co.,  300  acres  of  the  Dougherty  property  to  Nis- 
sen,  60  odd  acres  of  Dougherty  property  to  Brown,  about  170  acres  of 
the  Fergoda  Estate  to  Bettencourt.  Some  67  acres  to  Casterson.  Some 

173 


Gale 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

256  acres  to  Camp.  Some  200  acres  of  Dougherty  property  to  Goul- 
art ;  afterwards  I  handled  a  trade  where  that  property  was  transferred 
to  Oxsen.  I  sold  some  of  the  Dougherty  property  to  Pine  &  Escobar. 
Some  57  odd  acres  belonging  to  the  Coffin  Estate  to  Nebbin  Bros.  10 
acres  of  Dougherty  property  to  Neat.  I  sold  some  four  or  five  small 
tracts  there  of  10  to  12  acres,  to  different  parties.  Some  143  acres  to 

611  J.  J.  Hanson.    Some  143  acres  to  Jurgensen.    Some  60  acres  to  Avila. 
I  purchased  for  Mrs.  Clement  193  acres  from  George  Cobb.     Some  of 
the  Harris  &  Donohue  Tract — 108  acres — to  Oxsen,  73  acres  to  Krue- 
ger;  150  acres  of  same  property — now  property  of  Spring  Valley 
Water  Co. — known  as  the  Morriwa  Stock  Farm,  to  the  Alameda  Sugar 
Co.    Some  10.13  acres  of  property  of  Harris  &  Donohue  to  De  Freitas. 
Sold  some  property  of  Lepitavich  to  Jones.    Some  21  acres  of  the  Lil- 
ienthal  property  to  Philpot.    I  bought  and  sold  the  race  track  prop- 
erty two  or  three  times.    In  addition  to  that,  there  were  other  sales 
that  passed  through  my  office,  and  with  which  I  am  perfectly  familiar. 

Roughly  speaking,  I  would  say  that  the  aggregate  amount  of  the 
sales  of  the  property  I  have  made  in  Pleasanton  during  the  past  five 
or  six  years,  is  about  $1,000,000. 

I  have  appraised  the  property  of  the  Spring  Valley  "Water  Co.  at 
Pleasanton,  and  consider  myself  very  well  informed  as  to  those  prop- 

612  erties.    My  familiarity,  extending  over  a  period  practically  ever  since 
I  can  remember.    I  have  made  a  thorough  examination  of  those  prop- 
erties for  the  purpose  of  appraising  them,  and  have  determined  the 
market  value  as  of  December  31,  1913.    I  did  not,  in  determining  the 
value,  include  the  valuation  of  structures  of  any  kind.     I  simply 
valued  the  lands  themselves.     I  made  no  allowance  in  my  valuation 
because  of  the  value  which  those  lands  may  be  to  the  company. 

I  took  the  properties  as  laid  out  upon  the  map  furnished  me  by 
the  Spring  Valley  Water  Co.,  and  went  over  each  individual  property, 
made  a  study  of  it,  took  into  consideration  the  knowledge  that  I  had 
of  real  estate  values  in  and  surrounding  Pleasanton,  and  placed 
thereon  what  I  deemed  was  a  fair  and  conservative  valuation. 

Questioned  by  Master. 

I  put  a  value  on  them  that  I  felt  there  would  be  no  question  of 
doubt  that  a  willing  purchaser  would  pay  to  a  man  who  desired  to  sell 

the  properties ;  a  man  who  would  be  a  willing  seller. 
613 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY   MR.    GREENE. 

In  placing  my  valuation,  I  took  the  properties  as  they  now  stand 
in  their  present  condition,  without  any  reference  whatever  to  the 
placing  of  improvements  upon  them.  I  took  the  properties  as  they 
now  stand. 

CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY   MR.   STEINHART. 

I  did  not  ignore  the  roads  that  now  exist ;  that  would  not  be  tak- 
ing the  properties  as  they  now  stand. 

174 


Gale 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 
DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.   GREENE. 

Map  10,  parcel  239c ;  this  property  lies  below  County  Road  2000  614 
(30  acres)  in  what  was  formerly  known  as  the  Belza  lands.  The  soil 
is  sediment  loam,  rather  dark;  excellent  alfalfa  land.  An  artesian 
belt  runs  all  through  it.  The  land  is  very  good.  Some  years  ago  that 
section  of  the  country  was  used  for  berries  and  truck  gardens.  The 
Arroyo  De  Laguna  Creek  borders  it  on  the  west.  It  is  rather  an  ir^ 
regularly  shaped  piece.  My  value  is  $500  per  acre,  total  $15,000. 

Parcel  239d,  lies  across  the  creek,  and  upon  a  sloping  hillside  ad- 
jacent to  Mrs.  Hearst's  property;  a  very  prettily  wooded  piece;  ex- 
cellently located  for  a  home  site.  The  agricultural  value  is  not  the 
same  as  that  of  the  other  property  shown  on  map  10,  because  it  is  roll- 
ing, and  there  is  considerable  brush  on  it  in  portions.  18.067  acres,  at 
$200  per  acre,  $3613.40. 

Parcel  239e,  lies  in  the  flat;  rich  loam,  produces  alfalfa,  vege- 
tables. 1.53  acres  at  $500  per  acre,  $765.  615 

Questioned  by  Master. 

It  is  all  the  same  character  of  land  right  through  there. 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.   GREENE. 

Parcel  239f ,  is  a  triangular  piece ;  is  the  same  character  of  land  as 
e-239  and  c-239,  h-239,  and  i-239,  and  those  lands  lying  in  there  to- 
gether. .52  of  an  acre  at  $500  per  acre,  total  $260.  616 

239g,  small  piece,  containing  1.138  acres  at  $500  per  acre,  total 
$569.  Same  character  of  land  as  the  rest  of  the  land  surrounding  it, 
and  capable  of  the  same  uses. 

239-h  is  capable  of  the  same  uses,  raising  alfalfa,  beets,  truck  gar- 
den and  vegetables ;  is  now  used  for  alfalfa.  108.48  acres  at  $500  an 
acre,  total  $54,240. 

239-i,  a  portion  of  this  property  is  similar  to  the  other  properties, 
such  as  239-h,  but  there  is  a  large  round  hill  in  it.  A  portion  of  the 
low  lands  is  used  for  general  agricultural  purposes,  such  as  alfalfa. 
The  hill  is  used  for  hay.  There  is  also  a  small  knoll  on  it.  92.501  acres 
at  $300  per  acre,  total  $27,750.30. 

239- j  is  similar  to  239-h;  used  for  alfalfa.  137y2  acres  at  $500, 
total  $68,758. 

Questioned  by  Master. 

In  placing  these  figures  on  these  different  subdivisions,  I  con- 
sider it  as  a  part  of  the  whole.  I  took  several  pieces,  and  appraised 
them  all  at  $500  an  acre.  They  were  all  adjacent  to  each  other,  and 
of  the  same  character.  Those  small  parcels,  239-f,  containing  .52  of  617 
an  acre,  by  itself,  I  don't  know  that  it  would  be  of  a  value  of  $500. 
That  is  taking  it  by  itself,  but  taking  it  in  connection  with  the  other 
lands,  it  would  be  of  that  value. 


175 


Gale 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 
DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  GREENE. 

239-k;  that  is  similar  to  the  other  lands  which  I  have  just  ap- 
praised at  $500.  The  uses  are  the  same.  It  is  level,  rich  bottom  land, 
dark  sediment  loam.  159.28  acres  at  $500,  total  $79,640. 

239-1  lies  north  of  County  Road  2000.  It  is  bottom  land,  sedi- 
ment fill,  dark  loam,  used  for  general  agricultural  purposes,  vege- 
tables, beets,  alfalfa.  Its  most  valuable  use  is  alfalfa  and  truck  gard- 
ening. 91.204  acres  at  $500,  total  $45,602. 

239-m,  practically  the  same  as  239-1,  lies  adjacent  to  it,  and  is  a 
smaller  piece.  4  acres  at  $500,  total  $2,000.  Same  character  of  land 
as  239-1. 

239-n,  lies  adjacent  to  239-1  and  239-m ;  is  the  same  character  of 

618  soil.    20  acres  at  $500  per  acre,  total  $10,000. 

239-o,  practically  the  same  character  of  land.  The  uses  are 
the  same.  51.35  acres  at  $500,  total  $25,675. 

239-p  lies  back  of  239-o,  and  is  not  facing  on  the  county  road. 
Practically  the  same  as  the  other  lands  valued  at  $500.  If  I  were 
to  make  a  sale  of  those  properties,  instead  of  running  the  line 
through  where  it  is,  I  would  probably  run  it  in  just  the  opposite 
way.  That  is  the  reason  I  placed  the  value  as  I  did.  54.69  acres  at 
$500  per  acre,  total  $27,345. 

Questioned  by  Master. 

239-p  has  a  30  or  a  40  foot  right  of  way  to  the  county  road  on 
each  side  of  239-o. 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.   GREENE. 

239-q  lies  south  of  County  Road  2000.  Its  uses  are  for  general 
agricultural  purposes,  alfalfa;  rich  dark  sediment  loam.  In  some 
spots  there  is  some  light  soil.  28.37  acres  at  $500,  total  $14,185. 

239-r,  very  similar  to  239-q.  Its  uses  are  practically  the  same. 
43.92  acres  at  $500,  total  $21,960. 

239-s,  a  small  tract,  practically  the  same  as  the  balance  of  the 
property  surrounding  it.  4  acres  at  $500,  total  $2000. 

239-t  is  a  long  oblong  strip,  practically  the  same  as  the  other 
lands.  10.88  acres  at  $500  per  acre,  total  $5,440. 

619  239-u,  practically  the  same  as  the  other  land  surrounding  it, 
with  the  same  uses.    10.12  acres  at  $500  an  acre,  total  $5,060. 

239-v,  practically  the  same.  8.12  acres  at  $500  an  acre,  total 
$4060. 

239-v,  239-q,  239-s,  239-k,  239-p,  239-u,  239-r,  239-j,  239-c,  239-h 
and  239-e  all  lie  together,  and  are  practically  the  same  tract.  They 
lie  below  the  county  road,  and  practically  all  of  them,  with  the  ex- 
ception of  one  parcel  on  the  opposite  side  of  the  creek,  next  to  Mrs. 
Hearst's  property,  and  the  property  that  contains  the  large  hill  and 
knoll,  are  practically  the  same  character  of  land;  some  parcels  are 
not  quite  as  good  as  others,  but  taken  as  a  whole,  they  are  prac- 

176 


Gale 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

tically  the  same  character  of  land ;  the  same  uses  and  the  same  kind 
of  soil. 

241-G  (yellow  strip  right  across  the  road  from  239-r)  the  uses 
are  practically  the  same  as  the  other  parcels.  The  soil  varies  con- 
siderably, and  is  not  as  good  as  the  soil  on  the  opposite  side  of 
the  road  as  239-p  and  239-0.  It  has  some  sandy  spots  in  it,  and  a 
few  hog  wallows.  76  acres  at  $450  per  acre,  total  $34,200.  620 

268-0,  this  is  the  piece  of  property  upon  a  portion  of  which  the 
Pleasanton  hop  yards  were  originally  located.  Rich  bottom  land, 
rather  sandy  sediment  soil.  Its  uses  are  beet  growing,  alfalfa — 
general  agricultural  purposes.  Hops  were  very  successful  on  a  por- 
tion of  it.  About  150  acres  would  make  very  fine  vegetable  land. 
299.74  acres  at  $500  per  acre,  total  $149,870.  I  do  not  know  what 
was  paid  for  that. 

Questioned  by  Master. 

That  is  an  old  map  that  was  put  on  there  by  Lilienthal  several 
years  ago.  Those  roads  that  appear  on  the  map  are  still  through 
the  property,  I  think,  with  the  exception  of  what  is  marked  as 
''Rose  Avenue".  Black  Avenue  still  runs  through,  and  is  being 
used,  and  I  think  Valley  Avenue.  Only  a  portion  of  the  one  marked 
Rose  Avenue  is  running  through  the  property.  All  of  this  property 
was  mapped  off,  and  the  roads  mapped  on  it,  but  excepting  the  roads 
that  are  used  continually  now,  they  have  been  discarded. 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.   GREENE. 

268-P  lies  just  across  the  bridge  from  the  town  of  Pleasanton. 
Practically  all  subdivided  into  town  lots,  and  its  use  is  more  valu- 
able for  town  lots  than  for  any  other.  It  would  sell  very  readily 
for  that  purpose.  11.64  acres  at  $1000  per  acre,  total  $11,640.  621 

268-Q,  the  soil  is  rich  sandy  loam.  Its  uses  would  be  general 
agricultural  purposes,  beet  raising  and  truck  gardens.  A  portion  of 
it  would  be  salable  in  smaller  parcels ;  lying  right  along  the  county 
road.  241.43  acres  at  $500  per  acre,  total  $120,715. 

268-R  lies  on  the  opposite  side  of  the  county  road,  just  north  of 
what  is  known  as  the  Pleasanton  Vegetable  Garden.  Rich  bottom 
land,  suitable  for  berries  and  vegetables,  and  fruits.  One  bad  strip 
through  this  piece  of  property ;  rather  gravelly,  where  an  old  creek 
bottom  runs.  64.70  acres  at  $550  per  acre,  total  $35,585. 

268-S  is  bottom  land,  dark  loam ;  has  been  used  for  beet  raising ; 
portions  of  it  for  alfalfa.  At  present  time  there  are  only  some 
five  or  six  acres  in  alfalfa.  There  are  small  stretches  of  alkali  in  it. 
296.79  acres  at  $300  per  acre,  total  $89,003.70. 

268-T,  long  oblong  piece  of  property,  originally  purchased  by 
the  Alameda  Sugar  Co.  for  the  placing  of  a  beet  dump;  a  portion 
of  it  is  in  alfalfa ;  sandy,  fertile  loam,  lying  right  along  the  railroad 
track.  3.78  acres  at  $350  per  acre,  total  $1323. 

177 


Gale 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

622  268-U,  the  soil  varies  from  a  rich  dark  loam  to  a  rather  sandy 
loam.    Its  uses  are  beet  growing.    Some  portions  are  growing  alfalfa. 
785  acres  at  $350  per  acre,  total  $274,750.    That  is  one  of  the  pur- 
chases from  the  Alameda  Sugar  Company. 

268-V,  another  piece  of  property  that  was  purchased  from  the 
Alameda  Sugar  Co.  Some  excellent  bottom  land  there ;  portions 
being  rather  a  black  loam,  and  others  a  sandy  loam.  Its  uses  would 
be  for  the  growing  of  beets.  Alfalfa  could  be  grown  upon  it.  Faces 
two  sides  of  the  county  road.  338.01  acres  at  $250  per  acre,  total 
$84,502.50. 

Parcel  271,  known  as  the  Bryan  property ;  bottom  land ;  dark 
loam;  some  alkali.  Its  uses  are  for  general  agricultural  purposes, 
alfalfa;  it  is  a  fair  dairy  ranch.  63.78  acres  at  $300  per  acre,  total 
$19,134. 

Parcel  272,  is  a  portion  purchased  from  Peach.  It  is  rich  loam. 
Its  uses  are  alfalfa.  10  acres  at  $500  per  acre,  total  $5,000. 

Parcel  273  is  the  Anselmo  property.  Its  uses  would  be  alfalfa 
and  beet  raising,  truck  farming.  5  acres  at  $500  per  acre,  total 
$2500. 

Parcel  274,  a  piece  lying  upon  the  county  road  leading  from 
Santa  Rita  to  Livermore.  It  is  bottom  land,  but  has  an  alkali  streak 
in  it.  10  acres  at  $250  an  acre,  total  $2500. 

623  Parcel  275,  low  bottom  land,  dark  heavy  loam,  very  well  drained. 
The  uses  would  be  alfalfa.     40.61  acres   at  $450  per  acre,  total 
$18,274.50. 

Parcel  277,  purchased  from  Caton  Lewis.  Lies  adjacent  to  the 
Peach  property.  Same  kind  of  land  as  the  Peach  and  Anselmo 
property,  fine  loam.  11  acres  at  $500  per  acre,  total  $5,500. 

Parcel  278,  purchased  from  Davis ;  rich  bottom  land.  Some  por- 
tions have  the  dark  loam,  and  others  the  sandy  loam.  The  uses  would 
be  alfalfa,  berries,  truck  gardens.  A  portion  of  it  formerly  in  hops. 
177.37  acres  at  $500  per  acre,  total  $88,685. 

Parcel  279,  a  purchase  from  Green;  rather  adobe  in  portions, 
but  some  loam.  Streaked  with  alkali.  The  uses  are  general  agri- 
cultural purposes.  At  one  time  had  some  alfalfa  on  it.  117.533  acres 
at  $200  per  acre,  total  $23,506.60. 

Parcel  280,  the  Kruse  purchase;  has  a  rich  bottom  sediment  fill 
loam.  The  uses  would  be  truck  gardening,  alfalfa,  beets,  vegetables, 
orchard.  70  acres  at  $550  an  acre,  total  $38,500. 

Parcel  281,  rich  land,  all  level;  dark  sediment  loam;  alfalfa 
growing;  other  general  agricultural  purposes.  Faces  the  county 
road.  50  acres  at  $500  per  acre,  total  $25,000. 

Parcel  282,  there  are  several  pieces  in  parcel  282.     The  piece 

624  that  has  38.93  acres  in  it  is  divided  into  two  pieces;  one  containing 
29.20  and  the  other  about  10  acres;  they  do  not  lie  adjacent  to  each 
other. 

178 


Gale 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 
CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  STEINHART 

The  rectangular  strip  is  included  in  the  10  acres.  It  is  excellent 
farming  land ;  rich  dark  loam ;  some  light  loam  in  it ;  exceptionally 
clean  of  foul  growth ;  well  fertilized.  Its  purposes  are  general  agri- 
cultural purposes,  truck  garden,  fruit.  38.93  acres  at  $450  an  acre, 
total  $17,518.50. 

Referring  to  parcel  containing  19.47  acres,  a  part  of  parcel  282 ; 
heavy  dark  loam  bottom  land;  general  agricultural  purposes,  beet 
raising;  a  little  too  high  for  alfalfa;  truck  gardening.  19.47  acres 
at  $400  per  acre,  total  $7,787.  The  property  lies  upon  a  small  mound. 
It  is  a  little  too  high  for  alfalfa  without  irrigation;  with  irrigation 
it  would  grow  alfalfa  very  well. 

Referring  to  the  10.13  acres  piece;  that  was  part  of  the  De 
Freitas  purchase.  Low  bottom  land,  dark  heavy  loam ;  suitable  for 
alfalfa,  excellent  grazing.  10.13  acres  at  $400  an  acre,  total  $4,052. 
It  is  the  triangular  strip  in  brown,  the  number  is  marked  on  the  side. 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  GREENE.  625 

Parcel  283,  made  up  of  four  parcels ;  referring  to  parcel  143.14 
acres.  This  is  a  portion  of  Schween  purchase ;  rich  bottom  land ;  dark 
sediment  loam  to  the  west  of  the  railroad  track,  and  light  loam  to 
the  east.  About  40  acres  west  of  railroad  track  has  been  for  years 
used  for  pasture  land ;  the  balance  general  farming  land,  beet  rais- 
ing. 143.14  acres  at  $525  per  acre,  total  $75,148.50. 

Referring  to  piece  containing  101.05  acres;  excellent  piece  of 
level  land,  all  of  rich  loam,  rather  light  in  color  but  good  soil,  a 
little  gravel  across  the  east  end,  not  enough  to  hurt  the  land.  Uses, 
general  agricultural  purposes,  beet  raising  and  alfalfa.  Valued  at 
$425  an  acre,  total  $42,946.25. 

Referring  to  the  40  acre  piece ;  bottom  land,  dark ;  general  agri- 
cultural purposes,  beet  raising.  Valued  at  $350  per  acre,  total 
$14,000. 

Referring  to  106.72  acre  piece ;  this  is  very  similar  to  the  101.05 
acres  lying  immediately  north  and  adjacent.  The  soil  is  a  little  bit 
better  than  the  lower  piece.  All  of  the  Schween  property,  particu- 
larly the  143  and  a  fraction  acres,  and  these  two  pieces  are  excep- 
tionally clean  of  foul  growth.  Valued  at  $450  per  acre  for  106.72 
acres,  total  $48,024. 

Parcel  284,  Oxsen  purchase;  rich  bottom  land,  dark  sediment 
loam;  uses  alfalfa,  beet  raising,  and  other  general  agricultural  pur- 
poses. 16.70  acres  at  $450  an  acre,  total  $7515. 

Parcel  286,  purchased  from  Wenig;  bottom  land,  dark  in  color,        626 
suitable  for  dairy  purposes — alfalfa,  excellent  grazing  land.     17.28 
acres  at  $500  per  acre,  total  $8,640. 

Parcel  288,  purchase  known  as  the  Clark,  Chabot  &  Bothin 
purchase,  what  is  commonly  known  as  the  Chabot  Ranch.  The  soil 

179 


Gale 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

varies,  some  adobe,  some  alkali,  and  some  rich  bottom  land.  Some 
loam.  Uses,  beet  raising  and  general  agricultural  purposes,  alfalfa. 
Some  dark  clay  also  on  this  property.  1191.61  acres  at  $210  per 
acre,  total  $250,238.10.  This  tract  has  a  county  road,  which  is 
known  as  the  Hop  Yard  road,  running  through  it,  and  faces  the 
county  road  leading  from  Dublin  to  Santa  Rita.  About  150  acres 
of  it  are  of  adobe  nature,  with  some  alkali  in  it.  There  are  about 
100  acres  of  fair  bottom  land ;  300  acres  of  pretty  rich  bottom  land. 
The  balance,  about  700  acres,  is  of  rather  a  dark  clay  loam,  but  not 
very  sticky.  The  tract  overflows  considerably  in  heavy  winters.  The 
canals  that  are  through  there,  if  properly  taken  care  of,  would 
drain  the  property  fairly  well,  and  they  would  not  have  trouble 
with  it. 

Parcel  289,  the  Ronan  purchase ;  dark  rich  loam,  principally 
used  at  the  present  time,  and  for  several  years  past,  for  grazing  pur- 

627  poses.    Alfalfa  could  be  grown  on  it.    A  railroad  track  runs  through 
it  and  divides  it  rather  badly.    47.37  acres  at  $350  per  acre,  total 
$16,579.50. 

Parcel  291,  the  Head-Hewitt  purchase ;  bottom  land,  dark  loam, 
sandy  in  spots ;  the  lower  end  is  sediment  fill.  Uses  are  general  agri- 
cultural purposes.  There  are  a  couple  of  bad  spots  of  about  20 
acres  each.  210.547  acres  at  $275  per  acre,  total  $57,900.42.  Sedi- 
ment fill  is  a  fill  that  is  drawn  in,  or  washed  in  there  by  the  creeks 
and  canals.  It  is  not  a  detriment  to  the  property.  In  most  cases  it 
is  a  benefit.  That  rich  loam  is  brought  down  and  deposited  there. 

Referring  to  map  11,  beginning  at  the  right-hand  upper  corner, 
I  did  not  value  No.  224.  In  A-239,  I  only  valued  that  portion  of  it 
lying  outside  of  the  -creek  bottom,  and  within,  in  places,  from  25  to 
100  feet  of  the  high-water  mark  of  the  creek.  229,  in  brown,  the 
little  square  piece,  I  did  value.  232,  225,  231,  and  235,  which  seem  to 
be  joined  together,  I  did  not  value.  263  I  did  not  value.  The  four 

628  small  parcels  marked  225  in  the  lefthand  corner,  I  did  value,  then  the 
remainder  of  the  map,  beginning  with  E-239,  that  portion  lying  above 
the  highwater  mark,   and  beginning  within   a  reasonable   distance 
thereof,  I  valued.    The  remainder  in  the  creek  bottom,  I  did  not.    I 
valued  D-239  above  the  highwater  mark.    I  did  not  value  the  creek 
bottom,  or  the  land  lying  immediately  adjacent  thereto.     233  I  did 
not  value.    B-239  I  valued,  excepting  that  portion  lying  in  the  creek 
bottom,  and  within  a  few  feet  of  the  highwater  mark.    C-239  I  valued, 
excepting  the  portion  lying  in  the  creek  bottom. 

There  are  four  parcels  in  No.  225,  located  in  the  town  of  Niles. 
Beginning  with  .0023  of  an  acre,  this  is  a  very  small  piece  that  lies 
adjacent  to,  and  on  the  east  side  of  the  railroad  track.  I  would 
judge  that  it  was  not  much  bigger  than  a  portion  of  this  table,  but 
I  appraised  it  in  the  same  manner,  and  at  the  same  rate  that  I  ap- 
praised the  other  properties  contained  in  this  parcel,  at  the  rate  of 

180 


Gale 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

$1000  per  acre,  or  $2.30  for  the  entire  piece.  The  second  parcel  of 
No.  225,  containing  .416  of  an  acre,  is  a  portion  of  level  land  that 
faces  the  county  road,  and  also  the  S.  P.  right  of  way.  The  uses 
this  piece  could  be  put  to  would  be  either  for  a  dwelling,  or  possibly 
for  a  warehouse.  I  figured  it  in  as  a  dwelling  site,  valued  at  $1000 
per  acre,  or  $416  for  the  entire  piece. 

The  next  piece  has  11.46  acres ;  lies  to  the  north  of  the  county  629 
road,  and  the  railroad  tracks  leading  from  Niles  toward  Mission  San 
Jose.  It  does  not  lie  immediately  adjacent  to  those  properties,  but 
within  a  couple  of  hundred  feet  of  it.  The  county  road  through 
Niles  Canyon  passes  over  or  through  this  property.  It  has  several 
dwellings  on  it  now,  used  by  residents  of  Niles.  The  company,  I  be- 
lieve, only  owns  the  land.  Valued  at  $1000  per  acre,  or  a  total  of 
$11,460.  The  other  parcel  in  225  contains  .699  of  an  acre,  and  lies 
just  south  of  the  county  road  leading  from  Niles  toward  Mission 
San  Jose.  It  is  a  triangular  piece,  rather  hard  to  get  at.  I  ap- 
praised that  piece  at  a  total  of  $350. 

Parcel  229,  is  the  square  piece  in  brown,  and  lies  about  a  mile 
or  a  mile  and  a  quarter  from  the  town  of  Niles.  It  is  on  the  west 
side  of  the  creek,  and  west  of  the  county  road.  Is  139  feet  square, 
and  would  make  an  excellent  residence  site.  I  appraised  it  at  $250 
for  the  entire  piece. 

Parcel  237,  lies  across  the  creek  from  Niles;  is  a  long  oblong 
piece;  lies  on  the  hillside.  About  one-half  of  it  is  under  cultiva- 
tion; the  other  half  very  steep.  A  portion  of  the  other  half  could 
be  placed  under  cultivation.  There  are  some  buildings  upon  the 
property,  which  are  not  the  property  of  the  company.  The  portion 
under  cultivation  is  used  for  early  vegetables.  Appraised  at  $200 
an  acre,  total  $2,130.  I  paid  no  particular  attention  to  the  improve- 
ments that  were  on  any  of  this  property.  630 

239-A  is  what  is  known  as  the  Mayborg  property,  lies  on  the 
west  and  south  slopes  of  Niles  Canyon ;  it  is  rather  irregular  in  shape. 
The  northerly  portion  runs  close  to  the  top  of  the  ridge  on  west  side. 
All  the  property  is  steep.  Portions  of  it  are  heavily  wooded.  No 
farming  land  of  any  kind  on  the  property.  Could  be  used  only  for 
grazing  purposes,  or  the  entire  piece  could  be  sold  for  a  building 
site.  71.45  acres  is  the  total  acreage,  and  I  appraised  the  entire  piece 
at  $500.  I  deducted  from  that  20.45  acres  for  creek  bottoms,  and 
which  I  eliminated  from  my  valuation. 

239-B,  this  is  the  Mehrmann  property;  lies  on  both  sides  of  the 
creek.  All  steep,  wooded,  very  little  good  grazing  land  on  it,  except 
some  on  top  of  the  ridges.  A  small  portion,  possibly  10  or  15  acres 
-on  sonth  side  of  creek,  is  fairly  level,  and  would  make  an  excellent 
building  site.  I  appraised  this  entire  parcel  at  $3,000,  eliminating  the  631 
portion  that  was  in  the  creek.  The  total  acreage  is  263.56.  I  elimi- 
nated 20.56  acres  in  the  creek  bottom. 

181 


Gale 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

239-C,  contains  109  acres.  Only  a  small  portion  lies  in  the  creek 
bottom.  I  eliminated  5  acres  for  that  portion.  Appraised  at  $20 
an  acre,  total  $2,080.  This  property  is  steep  and  wooded ;  about  50 
acres  of  open  grazing  land.  Also,  possibly  5  to  10  acres  that  are 
fairly  level,  and  could  be  used  for  buildings. 

239-D  is  only  a  small  piece  of  property.  There  is  a  building 
site  upon  it.  It  is  very  wooded  and  steep.  I  eliminated  practically 
only  a  quarter  of  an  acre.  I  appraised  the  entire  piece  at  $500. 

239-E,  is  a  piece  containing  29.99  acres,  from  which  I  eliminated 
10  acres  for  the  portion  that  lies  in  the  creek,  and  immediately 
adjacent  thereto.  Property  is  steep  and  wooded.  There  is  a  fair 
building  site  on  it.  I  appraised  the  entire  piece  for  $500. 

632  The  total  amount  at  which  I  valued  the  Pleasanton  properties, 
appearing  on  map  10,  is  $1,994,454.27,  and  contains  in  total  acreage 
5,490.909,  and  makes  an  average  value  per  acre  of  $363.23.     To  ex- 
plain the  difference  in  values,  ranging  at  from  $400  to  $500  and  $550 
on  the  different  parcels,  as  to  which  I  testified  this  morning ;  through 
all  that  Pleasanton  country  the  land  differs.    There  is  a  difference 
in  the  character  of  the  soil.     One  portion  might  be  richer  than  the 
other,  one  might  be  lower  than  the  other.     I  took  all  those  things 
into  consideration  when  appraising  the  property.     Some  portions 
might  be  adaptable  for  the  same  purposes ;  one  might  raise  a  larger 
crop  than  the  other.    I  took  those  things  into  consideration  in  placing 

633  my  value.    The  distance  of  a  given  piece  of  property  from  the  heart 
of  the  town  of  Pleasanton  in  some  instances  may  have  played  a 
part  in  my  valuation,  but  not  to  any  material  extent.     Of  course, 
a  piece  of  property  lying  immediately  adjacent  to  the  town,  if  the 
soil  was  of  the  same  character  as  that  of  a  piece  that  lies  three  miles 
away,  may  be  a  little  more  valuable  because  of  its  location,  but  the 
difference  in  the  selling  price  of  it  would  be  but  little. 

The  properties  referred  to  on  map  10  are  within  a  radius  of 
from  3  to  3^  miles  of  the  town  of  Pleasanton. 

Referring  to  map  12,  the  properties  there  delineated  are  around 
the  town  of  Sunol,  and  I  have  known  these  properties  off  and  on  ever 
since  I  can  remember. 

Parcel  228,  the  larger  portion  of  this  property  is  open  grazing 
land.  There  are  about  40  acres  of  farming  land  on  top  of  the  ridge. 
A  portion  of  the  Western  Pacific  Picnic  Grounds  are  situated  on 

634  the  property ;  also  the  dam  known  as  Sunol  dam.    Practically  all  of 
it  lies  on  the  south  slope  of  the  Alameda  Creek,  including  the  top 
of  the  ridge.    There  are  30  acres  along  the  creek  that  is  bench ;  fair 
farming  land.    198.94  acres  at  $60  an  acre,  total  $11,936.40. 

Parcel  239-b,  referring  to  the  one  that  has  20.32  acres ;  lies  very 
close  to,  and  adjacent  to  what  is  known  as  the  Nusbaumer  tract,  and 
is  south  of  this  tract.  The  S.  P.  right  of  way  cuts  through  the  prop- 
erty. About  six  acres  of  it  can  be  farmed.  Balance  of  it  rather 

182 


Gale 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

rough  and  wooded.  I  appraised  it  in  conjunction  with  the  Nus- 
baumer  tract,  No.  290,  at  $100  an  acre,  total  $2,032.  It  could  be 
used  for  a  home  site,  and  a  portion  of  it  could  be  farmed,  the  balance 
cleared  off.  The  5.82  acre  piece,  lying  almost  adjacent  to  it,  I  ap- 
praised at  $100  an  acre,  total  $582.  This  piece,  as  near  as  I  could 
ascertain  when  visiting  the  ground,  is  rather  badly  cut  by  the  West- 
ern Pacific  in  making  their  fill.  If  leveled  off,  it  would  make  a  nice  635 
dwelling  site.  There  are  some  trees  on  it. 

239-w,  that  is  the  Behrens  property ;  rich  soil ;  some  sediment  fill 
in  it;  orchard,  vegetables.  Faces  the  county  road.  4.15  acres  at 
$350  an  acre,  total  $1,452.50. 

239-F,  lies  in  Niles  Canyon,  and  is  practically  opposite  Feusier's 
property.  Runs  only  a  short  distance  from  the  bank  of  the  creek 
up  to  the  slope.  About  3  acres  is  in  an  old  prune  orchard;  it  is 
fairly  level;  the  balance  is  steep  and  wooded.  Valued  at  $75  per 
acre,  total  $735.75. 

239-G,  lies  on  county  road  from  Pleasanton  to  Sunol.  Has  been 
used  for  vegetable  purposes.  At  one  time  Mr.  Wells,  of  Tesicana 
raised  a  pea  crop  in  there.  A  small  portion  of  the  property  lies  in 
the  creek  bottom.  Generally  good  for  agricultural  purposes.  Vege- 
tables can  be  raised  there ;  also  alfalfa.  22.25  acres  at  $250  an  acre, 
total  $5,562.50. 

239-H,  that  is  the  Charles  Stone  piece.  Entire  property  is  of 
rolling  hills.  Some  of  it  is  steep.  Small  portions  of  it  wooded; 
practically  all  grazing  land.  A  portion  of  it  could  be  farmed.  E.  C. 
Apperson  has  used  it  for  grazing  purposes  for  a  good  many  years. 
Valued  at  $60  an  acre,  for  1172.16  acres,  total  $70,329.60.  636 

239-1,  239-J,  239-K,  all  small  portions  lying  on  the  road  that 
leads  along  the  railroad  track  at  Sunol.  Lies  between  the  creek 
and  S.  P.  R.  R.  track.  The  Western  Pacific  Railroad  track  cut  it  up 
pretty  badly.  Valued  at  $100  for  each  piece,  or  $300  for  all  three 
pieces.  Could  only  be  used  for  residences. 

239-L,  Charles  Hadsell  piece.  Contains  2317.59  acres.  350  acres 
lie  where  the  water  temple  at  Sunol  is,  on  the  county  road  from 
Sunol  to  Py's  Corner,  and  from  Py's  Corner  to  the  Mission  Bridge; 
along  the  southern  boundary  would  be  the  creek,  and  the  western 
boundary  would  be  the  creek.  100  acres  of  this  property  is  in  a 
walnut  orchard.  In  1913  the  trees  were  three  years  old,  I  believe. 
Good  land,  and  can  be  used  for  almost  any  agricultural  purposes. 
Quite  a  nursery  upon  the  property  at  the  present  time.  That  is  the 
property  upon  which  the  water  temple  is,  and  those  buildings  that 
stretch  up  to  the  corner.  Then  there  is  the  portion  lying  on  the 
-east  side  of  the  county  road,  leading  from  Mission  San  Jose,  consist- 
ing of  about  100  acres  of  poor  land.  The  soil  has  some  gravel  in  it, 
and  is  rather  red  in  portions.  It  is  very  good,  however.  This  prop-  637 
erty  can  be  used  for  general  agricultural  purposes,  for  farming,  hay 

183 


Gale 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

and  grain.  There  are  900  acres  also  lying  on  that  side  of  the  county 
road  leading  from  Livermore  through  the  Vallecitas  road  to  Mission 
San  Jose,  and  through  Py's  Corner.  A  portion  of  it  is  farming 
land,  some  of  it  grazing,  and  some  waste.  It  is  fairly  well  watered. 
Has  some  large  oak  trees  scattered  over  it.  Good  grazing  and  farm- 
ing land.  Another  tract  of  750  acres  lies  between  the  Vallecitas 
road  and  the  road  leading  from  Pleasanton  to  Sunol;  all  rolling, 
hilly,  with  red  soil.  Some  waste  land  in  it.  Most  of  it  is  farmed. 
Its  uses  are  general  agricultural  purposes  and  grazing.  Another 
piece  of  about  150  acres  lies  on  the  east  side  of  the  railroad  track, 
and  on  west  side  of  the  creek,  and  bounded  on  the  south  by  the 
Alameda;  rather  a  sandy  loam,  reddish  in  spots;  some  dark  loam 
in  it.  General  agricultural  purposes,  truck  gardening.  A  portion  of 
it  has  been  used  for  the  planting  of  peas. 

In  regard  to  the  land  that  was  well  watered,  I  did  not  make 
any  additional  allowance  in  my  valuation  because  of  that  fact,  other 
than  this :  properties  which  have  water  upon  them  for  cattle  ranges 
and  for  farming  purposes,  are  a  little  more  valuable  than  properties 
that  have  not,  but  I  only  took  into  consideration  the  water  for  the 
use  on  the  lands  themselves,  and  by  the  party  residing  thereon,  for 

638  the  purpose  of  caring  for  his  stock  and  so  on.    I  took  into  considera- 
tion no  water  whatever  in  any  of  these  lands,  excepting  the  consid- 
eration that  the  man  who  owned  the  property,  and  was  living  on  it, 
could  use  the  water  on  the  land,  and  for  his  stock.    The  entire  piece 
of  2317.59  acres  I  valued  at  $150  per  acre,  or  $347,638.50. 

Parcel  239-N,  known  as  the  Whitmore-Nusbaumer  property. 
Lies  on  north  side  of  San  Antonio  Creek ;  all  rolling ;  soil  is  reddish ; 
portions  on  the  flat  and  benches  are  dark  and  very  good ;  almost  en- 
tire property  can  be  farmed  for  general  agricultural  purposes,  hay 
and  grain  raising.  Some  of  it  would  make  excellent  grape  land. 
Exceptionally  well  adapted  to  cultivation.  764.86  acres  at  $60  per 
acre,  total  $45,891.61. 

Parcel  239-0,  practically  all  lies  on  the  south  side  of  the  San 
Antonio  Creek,  or  southwest  side,  and  runs  back  into  the  hills  quite 
a  little  ways.  Contains  considerable  flat  land.  Soil  on  the  flat  is 
loam  and  clay,  and  rather  poor,  with  some  gravel  in  it  in  places; 
balance  is  reddish  and  good  farming  land.  About  300  acres  of  the 
property  is  farmed.  100  acres  being  practically  level,  the  balance 
steep  gulches  and  rolling  grazing  land.  421  acres  at  $50  per  acre, 
total  $21,050. 

639  Parcel  244,  lies  just  south  of  Alameda  Creek,  and  west  of  the 
county  road  from  Sunol  to  Mission  San  Jose.    75  acres  is  rather  rich 
dark  soil,  some  sand  in  it.     Balance  is  rolling  to  a  small  degree. 
Rather  good  soil.     General  agricultural  purposes,  hay  and  grain. 
110  acres  at  $200  per  acre,  total  $22,000. 

184 


Gale 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

Parcel  252,  lies  on  the  south  bank  of  the  Arroyo  de  Laguna  Creek, 
near  Sunol.  A  very  poor  piece  of  property.  In  a  few  years  there  will 
be  no  property  there.  It  will  be  washed  into  the  creek.  I  valued  the 
entire  piece  at  $100. 

Parcel  261,  lies  just  below  the  property  owned  by  Mrs.  Hearst. 
Formerly  an  apple  orchard  on  portion  of  it.  Rich  reddish  soil. 
Faces  the  county  road.  15.25  acres  at  $300  per  acre,  total  $4575. 

Parcel  262,  small  piece,  lies  in  between  the  county  road  and  the 
railroad  track.  Could  be  used  for  vegetables  and  fruit.  Character 
of  the  soil  is  such,  however,  as  is  not  well  adapted  for  those  pur- 
poses. 4.45  acres  at  $200  per  acre,  total  $850. 

Parcel  267,  175.40  acres.  Lies  in  Niles  Canyon,  and  runs  across  640 
the  ridge  to  what  is  known  as  Roumiguiere  Gulch.  About  75  acres 
on  top  of  the  ridge  on  southerly  side  is  open  fair  grazing  ground. 
About  40  acres  on  south  slope  of  creek  is  open  and  has  large  trees 
on  it.  Fairly  level.  About  30  acres  of  orchard  and  level  space  near 
the  creek.  30  acres  on  the  other  side  of  it  that  is  very  heavily 
wooded  and  steep.  About  70  acres  of  the  property  would  make 
excellent  building  sites  for  country  homes.  The  balance  is  fair 
grazing  land,  with  the  exception  of  the  portions  that  are  steep  and 
heavily  wooded.  175.04  acres,  at  $75  per  acre,  total  $13,128. 

Parcel  268-A,  known  as  the  Roumiguire  property.  Faces  on  the 
south  bank  of  Alameda  Creek,  with  bluffs.  Lies  on  the  west  and 
south  slope  of  Sunol  Valley.  The  soil  is  rather  a  red  clay,  not  very 
sticky ;  it  is  all  rolling.  200  acres  used  for  general  agricultural  pur- 
poses, such  as  hay  and  grain  raising,  about  60  acres  of  vineyard  in 
only  fair  shape;  also  portion  of  it  that  is  very  steep  and  thickly 
wooded.  256.90  acres  at  $125  per  acre,  total  $32,111.50. 

(The  acreage  on  the  map  was  shown  as  248.17,  but  the  inventory,        641 
which  is  stipulated  to  be  correct,  shows  256.90  acres.    Corrected  on  the 
face  of  the  map  by  the  Master.) 

Parcel  268-B,  faces  the  County  Road  on  the  west  side,  leading 
from  Mission  San  Jose  to  Sunol,  bounded  on  the  west  by  the  property 
of  Roumiguiere.  The  soil  in  the  northerly  portion  is  dark  loam  run- 
ning to  the  south,  with  red  adobe  and  clay.  The  property  lies  on  the 
north  and  west  slope  of  the  Sunol  Valley.  General  agricultural  pur- 
poses, hay  and  grain  raising;  balance  grazing  land  with  some  wood. 
250.78  acres  at  $150  per  acre,  total  $37,617. 

Parcel  290,  this  is  the  Nusbaumer  piece,  lying  on  the  west  side  of  642 
the  valley  between  Sunol  and  Pleasanton.  The  Arroyo  de  Laguna 
runs  through  it.  The  entire  slope  is  somewhat  wooded.  Portions  of 
it,  however,  are  very  open.  The  property  lying  upon  the  floor  of  the 
valley  has  very  good  soil.  It  is  suitable  for  orchard  and  general  agri- 
cultural purposes,  such  as  hay  raising,  also  grazing.  It  is  so  situated 

185 


Gale 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

that  it  would  make  some  beautiful  home  sites.    The  value  of  the  entire 
piece  containing  652.23  acres  is  $100  per  acre,  or  $65,223. 

(A  correction  was  made  on  the  Nusbaumer  Tract,  changing  656.59 
to  652.23  acres.) 

643  A  general  description  of  the  San  Antonio  lands ;  all  of  these  prop- 
erties lying  in  the  San  Antonio  are  grazing  lands.    Some  of  them  are 
heavily  wooded.    Some  of  them  good,  open  country ;  some  of  them  till- 
able.   They  are  not  all  grazing  lands.    There  are  some  portions  of  the 
pieces  that  are  tillable  and  are  farmed.     I  was  thinking  of  Arroyo 
Valle,  gentlemen,  I  made  a  mistake.     This  property  in  the  San  An- 
tonio; a  great  portion  of  that  property  lying  below  S-239,  T-239  is 
farming  land.    The  property  such  as  A-239,  X-239,  Z-239  and  V-239, 
are  grazing  lands.    In  portions  steep  and  wooded',  and  in  other  por- 
tions open.    Good  grazing  lands.    This  piece  of  property,  a-239,  is  lo- 
cated on  the  north  slope  of  the  San  Antonio,  and  practically  at  the  end 
of  the  company's  property.     There  is  another  section  which  connects 
the  San  Antonio  with  the  Arroyo  del  Valle,  Section  23,  marked  Y-239 
on  map  14.    This  property  is  fairly  open,  although  the  north  line  con- 
tains some  steep  gulches,  but  on  a  whole  is  fair  grazing  ground.    The 
south  portion  is  also  partly  wooded  in  one  of  the  extreme  corners.    I 

644  priced  this  property,  containing  480  acres  at  $15  an  acre,  total  $7,200. 

239-P,  this  is  what  is  known  as  the  Sunol  property.  It  lies  on 
the  south  slope  of  San  Antonio  Creek.  It  is  mostly  open,  good,  till- 
able land,  rather  dark  in  nature.  Indian  Creek  runs  through  the 
northeast  corner,  just  touching  it.  The  south  end  of  the  property  is 
very  steep.  There  is  some  light  soil  through  the  property.  $40  an 
acre,  total  $18,425.20,  for  460.63  acres.  60  acres  of  it  is  rather  steep 
pasture  land.  About  half  of  the  60  is  fair  open  pasture,  and  the  bal- 
ance is  rather  steep. 

239-Q,  lies  on  the  south  side  of  San  Antonio  Creek.  A  portion  of 
it  is  good  bench  land.  The  land  lying  in  the  flat  is  rather  gravelly, 
and  not  so  good  as  the  bench  land.  There  are  253  acres  of  grazing 
land.  A  portion  of  it  very  good,  and  a  portion  with  some  brush  on  it, 
but  fairly  open  and  with  large  trees.  It  contains  453.37  acres,  at  $45 
an  acre,  total  $20,401.65. 

239-R  lies  on  both  slopes  of  the  creek,  and  is  cut  up  somewhat  by 
the  creek.  The  property  is  practically  all  rolling.  The  soil  is  rather 
red  on  the  hillside.  In  the  creek  bottom  it  is  a  little  darker  with  some 
gravel  in  it.  About  200  acres  of  it  are  rolling,  grazing  lands,  but  good, 
with  large  oaks  scattered  over  it.  Contains  397.53  acres,  at  $45  an 
acre,  total  $17,888.85.  The  property  could  be  used  for  general  agri- 
cultural purposes,  including  grazing,  and  the  raising  of  hay  and  grain. 

S-239  lies  on  both  slopes  of  the  creek.     The  creek  about  bisects 

645        the  land.     A  little  over  200  acres  farming  land  of  a  rolling  nature. 

The  balance  lies  on  the  slopes  and  the  tops  of  the  slopes.    The  south 

slope  is  wooded  to  a  small  extent.     It  is  excellent  grazing  land.     It 

186 


Gale 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

can  be  used  for  general  agricultural  purposes,  farming,  hay  and  grain, 
and  grazing.  It  contains  893.15  acres  at  $25  an  acre,  total  $22,328.75. 
Parcels  Q  and  R  both  have  some  very  good  land  upon  them.  Good 
farming  land.  The  farming  land  on  this  parcel  is  not  as  good  as  on  Q 
and  R,  and  the  ratio  of  the  farming  land  to  the  total  acreage  is  dif- 
ferent. In  S-239  there  is  only  a  little  over  200  acres  of  farming  land, 
and  the  balance  is  grazing  land.  There  is  a  balance  of  some  690  odd 
acres.  In  R-239  there  are  about  200  acres  of  farming  land,  and  only 
about  200  acres  of  grazing  land. 

239-T,  this  property  also  lies  on  both  sides  of  the  San  Antonio. 
About  half  of  it  is  good  farming  land  and  good  grazing  land.  The 
balance  is  steep  in  portions,  and  some  portions  wooded,  particularly 
on  the  south  side.  The  farming  land  is  of  fair  soil.  On  the  north  side 
there  are  about  200  acres  good  farming  land;  that  is,  good  for  that 
kind  of  land,  and  lands  that  are  located  in  that  district — and  some 
good  pasture  land.  The  south  side  is  practically  all  pasture.  The 
uses  of  this  property  would  be  general  agricultural  purposes,  farming, 
hay  and  grain  and  grazing.  On  the  entire  piece  containing  1038.29 
acres,  I  placed  a  value  of  $30  an  acre,  total  $31,148.70.  The  north  end  646 
is  not  very  steep.  It  runs  practically  up  to  what  is  known  as  the  Lil- 
ienthal  property.  I  see  no  reason  why  all  the  north  end  could  not  be 
farmed.  A  portion  of  it  is  now  farmed,  but  apparently  for  the  last 
two  or  three  years,  and  during  the  time  of  this  appraisement,  they 
were  using  it  for  pasture.  Why  I  do  not  know.  Farmers  are  farming 
much  steeper  land  than  that  particular  portion  is. 

239-U  lies  over  on  the  south  ridge  adjoining  the  San  Antonio  Val- 
ley, and  runs  down  to  Indian  Creek  on  the  west.  The  portion  running 
into  Indian  Creek  is  very  steep,  and  covered  with  chaparral  and 
brush.  For  the  most  part  the  north  and  west  ends  of  the  property 
are  rather  poor.  About  one-third  of  it  is  good,  open  grazing  ground. 
I  placed  a  valuation  on  the  entire  piece  of  $10  an  acre,  313.61  acres, 
total  $3136.10.  Indian  Creek  cuts  along  the  west  side.  Going  down 
into  Indian  Creek  the  land  is  very  steep,  covered  with  a  good  deal  of 
brush. 

239-V,  is  a  fairly  open  property  with  good  grazing.  Only  about 
30  to  40  acres  in  the  southeast  corner  is  covered  with  heavy  brush. 
There  is  also  a  small  vineyard  of  about  5  acres  on  this  property.  Por- 
tion of  the  property  could  be  farmed.  It  contains  229.25  acres,  at 
$17.50  an  acre,  total  $4011.87. 

239-W,  is  a  piece  of  property  which  has  along  the  south  end  of  it       647 
a  small  portion  that  is  covered  with  chaparral,  other  than  that  it  is 
fairly  open,  but  steep  in  portions.    It  is  grazing  ground.    It  contains 
-107.85-  acres,  at  $17.50  an  acre,  total  $1,187.37. 

239-X,  on  the  north  side  of  this  property  there  is  fair  pasture, 
but  very  steep,  with  some  rock  outcroppings.  On  the  south  side  it  is 
also  steep  with  lots  of  brush.  There  are  two  very  deep  gulches  on  this 

187 


Gale 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

property.  Its  only  use  would  be  for  grazing  purposes.  Contains  640 
acres,  at  $12.50  an  acre,  total  $8000. 

239-V  is  a  piece  of  property  which  is  rather  irregular  in  shape. 
It  has  a  long,  narrow  strip  running  up  the  north  end  of  it  to  the  east. 
There  are  about  100  acres  running  along  the  bench  on  the  north  side, 
and  through  this  narrow  strip.  It  is  rather  steep.  The  south  is  also 
rather  steep.  Not  as  steep  as  some  other  property  surrounding  it.  As 
a  whole  it  is  fair  grazing  ground.  There  is  not  brush  on  it.  It  con- 
tains 364.65  acres,  at  $20  an  acre,  total  $7,293  for  the  entire  piece. 

The  properties  on  map  14  are  the  Arroyo  del  Valle  properties. 

Parcel  239- Y  is  a  section  of  land  which  adjoins  the  property  of 

--Q    the  company  in  the  San  Antonio  with  the  properties  of  the  company 

in  the  Arroyo  del  Valle.    It  is  the  one  which  adjoins  the  three-quarter 

648  section,  A-239  on  map  13.    It  is  open  rolling  grazing  land,  with  a  very 
few  steep  portions.    It  contains  640  acres,  at  $20  an  acre,  or  $12,800 
for  the  entire  piece. 

243-A,  lies  on  the  north  slope  of  the  Arroyo  del  Valle,  and  slopes 
south  towards  the  creek  bottom.  The  land  lying  on  the  slope  of  the 
hill  and  the  top  thereof  is  fair  open  grazing  land.  The  portion  lying 
over  the  top  of  the  ridge  to  the  north  is  wooded  and  steep.  The  prop- 
erty contains  two  ridges  of  excellent  grazing  land,  the  gulches  on  it, 
however,  are  steep.  There  is  practically  no  brush,  except  in  the  north 
portions.  This  piece  of  property  contains  80  acres,  at  $25  an  acre, 
total  $2000  for  the  entire  piece.  In  placing  this  value  upon  this  piece, 
I  took  into  consideration  the  fact  of  its  connection  with  other  prop- 
erties lying  in  there,  and  placed  a  value  on  several  pieces  lying  to- 
gether there  at  practically  the  same  figure.  I  assumed  that  this  par- 
ticular piece  in,  and  of  itself,  is  more  valuable  as  a  portion  of  the 
other  lands  surrounding  it  than  it  would  be  by  itself,  if  it  was  a  lone 
piece.  All  that  property  is  grazing  land.  Practically  the  only  pur- 
pose to  which  the  property  is  put  is  for  grazing  purposes.  A  small 
piece  of  80  acres  up  there  for  the  raising  of  cattle,  for  grazing  pur- 

649  poses,  would  be  of  little  value  to  anyone.    In  appraising  these  lands  I 
did  not  take  into  consideration  at  any  time  the  water  producing  pur- 
poses.   I  know  nothing  concerning  the  value  of  the  land  for  that  pur- 
pose, and  I  did  not  take  that  into  consideration  at  any  time.     At  no 
time  did  I  take  into  account  in  making  the  valuation  upon  these  lands 
any  purposes  to  which  they  could  be  put  for  water  storing  or  for 
supplying  in  any  way.    I  did  not  consider  myself  capable  of  apprais- 
ing lands  from  that  standpoint.     In  all  the  lands  I  appraised  I  took 
the  position  of  appraising  the  lands  simply  for  the  use  it  could  be  put 
to  by  any  private  individual  who  would  purchase  them — to  conduct 
a  small  ranch,  or  for  grazing  purposes,  or  something  of  that  kind.    I 
understand,  of  course,  that  all  these  properties  have  another  use,  and 
are  used  for  water  purposes.    What  the  value  of  that  use  is  I  have  no 
idea,  and  do  not  pretend  to  know. 

188 


Gale 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

243-B,  lies  in  the  Arroyo  del  Valle.  The  Arroyo  del  Valle  prac- 
tically bisects  it.  About  50  acres  of  farming  land.  Some  brush  upon 
it ;  rather  steep  in  places ;  large  trees.  640  acres  at  $25  per  acre,  total 
$16,000. 

243-C,  lies  on  west  side  of  creek.  Portion  in  creek  bottom.  More 
or  less  rough  and  wooded,  but  as  a  whole  is  fair  grazing  land.  120 
acres  at  $25  per  acre,  total  $3000.  650 

243-D,  lies  on  west  side  of  the  Arroyo  del  Valle  slope ;  is  wooded, 
has  some  sage  brush;  rather  steep.  Also  deep  ravine  in  north  end. 
There  is  a  little  grazing  land  on  it.  40  acres  at  $25  per  acre,  total 
$1000.  That  parcel  by  itself  would  not  be  worth  $25  an  acre.  In 
valuing  these  properties  I  took  into  consideration  the  fact  of  connec- 
tion with  other  parcels. 

243-1,  160  acres  lying  on  the  south-west  slope  of  the  Arroyo  del 
Valle.  Some  good  grazing  land  on  it;  also  some  that  is  rather  steep, 
with  a  good  deal  of  woods.  One  very  steep  gulch.  As  a  whole  it  is 
fair  grazing  land.  160  acres  at  $15  per  acre,  total  $2400. 

243- J,  is  very  similar  to  243-1 ;  lies  on  same  side  of  the  slope ;  has 
some  large  timber  on  it;  a  steep  gulch.  160  acres  at  $15  per  acre, 
total  $2400. 

243-K,  very  similar  to  243-1  and  243-J,  although  this  parcel  has 
some  excellent  grazing  land  on  a  small  portion  of  it ;  also  some  timber. 
160  acres  at  $15  per  acre,  total  $2400.  I  and  K  are  on  the  sides  of  the  651 
canyon,  and  running  up  pretty  close  to  the  top  of  the  ridge,  giving 
on  both  some  open  grazing  ground.  They  are  both  a  little  better  prop- 
erty than  J  from  a  grazing  standpoint.  243-J  is,  I  should  judge, 
about  one-eighth  of  a  mile  above  the  road  leading  into  the  valley. 

243-M,  open  grazing  ground ;  some  little  brush,  a  few  large  trees, 
rather  a  steep  draw  in  a  portion  of  it.  As  a  whole  very  fair  grazing 
ground.  87.79  acres  at  $25  per  acre,  total  $2,194.75.  The  draw  that 
I  refer  to  is  a  small  tributary  to  the  creek  that  runs  down  from  that 
draw,  which  is  the  arm  of  the  creek ;  the  large  point  running  up  there 
is  where  the  draw  is. 

243-N,  lies  on  the  east  and  north  slopes.  About  40  acres  of  it  is 
rough  lying  in  the  southeast  corner.  These  are  steep  and  wooded, 
and  with  gulches ;  the  balance  is  good,  open  grazing  land,  except  about 
half  of  it,  which  is  tillable.  237.81  acres  at  $25  per  acre,  total 
$5,945.25. 

243-0,  a  small  piece  containing  23  acres,  lying  practically  where 
the  roads  fork.    Practically  all  level  land.    Some  large  trees  on  it,  and 
considerable  gravel  through  it,  although  a  portion  of  it  is  excellent 
grazing  land.    All  the  soil  has  gravel  in  it  lying  pretty  close  to  the        652 
creek  bottom.    23  acres  at  $25  per  acre,  total  $575. 

243-P,  lies  on  a  bench  or  valley  to  the  east  of  the  creek ;  contains 
about  100  acres  which  is  farmed  for  hay.  The  balance  is  open  grazing 

189 


Gale 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

land.  The  soil  is  rather  red,  portions  of  it  have  adobe  through  it.  160 
acres  at  $25  per  acre,  total  $4000. 

243-Q,  lies  on  both  slopes  of  the  creek.  Considerable  level  land 
in  the  creek  bottom.  About  the  middle  of  the  north  half  is  a  steep 
gulch  on  the  east  side.  Poor  and  covered  with  brush.  Balance  is 
good,  open  grazing  land.  The  west  side  is  considerably  wooded,  but 
is  fairly  good  grazing  land.  661.80  acres  at  $15  per  acre,  total  $9,927. 

243-R,  about  two-thirds  lies  on  east  side  of  creek,  and  one-third 
on  the  west  side.  South  portion  of  east  side  is  rocky  and  steep,  and 
covered  with  chaparral ;  the  balance  is  fair  open  grazing  land.  West 
side  somewhat  wooded  and  steep.  Has  some  fair  grazing  land.  640 
acres  at  $15  per  acre,  total  $9,600. 

653  243-S,  lies  mostly  on  west  slope  of  Arroyo  del  Valle  Creek,  about 
20  acres  are  excellent  farming  land  lying  on  the  floor  of  the  valley. 
West  slope  is  wooded  and  steep  in  places.     Entire  property  is  fair 
grazing  land.    324.10  acres  at  $15  per  acre,  total  $4,861.50. 

243-T,  lies  on  both  sides  of  the  creek,  about  25  acres  on  the  east 
side,  the  balance  on  the  west  side.  Steep  and  wooded.  East  side 
rocky ;  grazing  none  too  good  anywhere  upon  the  property.  160  acres, 
at  $5  an  acre,  total  $800. 

654  243-U,  lies  midway  on  the  south-westerly  slope   of  the  creek. 
Heavily  wooded;  some  open  places,  pretty  fair  grazing.     160  acres, 
at  $6  an  acre,  total  $960. 

243- V,  lies  at  the  extreme  southerly  end  of  the  property  owned 
by  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Co.  in  the  Arroyo  del  Valle  on  both  sides 
of  the  creek.  Steep  on  both  sides;  some  wood,  some  chaparral,  small 
brush ;  some  open  grazing  ground,  very  little.  640  acres  at  $5  per  acre, 
total  $3200.  I  am  familiar  with  all  these  properties,  and  have  been 
on  all  of  them.  Not  only  during  the  time  that  I  was  appraising  them, 
but  I  have  been  hunting  over  these  properties,  practically  ever  since  I 
was  able  to  hold  a  gun.  I  know  all  these  properties. 

I  have  appraised  parcel  247  and  Parcel  N-268,  which  are  not  in- 
cluded on  that  summary.  N-268  is  in  the  bottom  of  the  creek,  down 
near  Schween's.  A  considerable  distance  below  the  bridge,  leading 
from  Livermore  along  the  Ruby  Vineyard  Road.  214.87  acres  at  $150 
per  acre,  for  the  entire  piece,  total  valuation  $32,527.50.  The  uses  of 

655  this  property  would  be  the  gravel  contained  in  it.    It  is  practically  all 
a  gravel  bed.    Parcel  247  lies  almost  adjoining  the  property  known  as 
the  Cresta  Blanca  property.     The  north  end  is  steep,  with  a  rough 
creek  or  ravine  running  through.    Some  brush  and  trees  on  the  side 
of  the  ravine.    Contains  a  large  washout  or  cliff  on  the  east  side,  very 
rough;  wooded  in  spots;  south  portion  steep  and  rocky  and  covered 
with  chaparral  and  scrub.    Entire  property  is  rather  rough.    A  good 
deal  of  good  grazing  land ;  the  feed  is  what  is  known  as  early  feed. 
About  90  acres  of  it  is  open.    164  acres  at  $15  per  acre,  total  $2,460. 

Map  15  contains  a  portion  of  the  properties  in  the  San  Antonio 

190 


Gale 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

just  east  of  the  mouth  of  the  San  Antonio,  and  also  properties  along 
the  Alameda  Creek,  up  to  a  little  beyond  Haynes  Gulch. 

239-M,  lies  east  of  Alameda  Creek,  includes  the  Alameda  Creek,  656 
up  to  what  is  known  as  the  Crocker  Place.  The  east  side  lies  along 
Apperson  Creek,  taking  in  a  portion  thereof.  The  southeast  corner 
lies  near  Maguire  Creek.  The  north  line  lies  north  of  San  Antonio 
Creek;  the  south  line  is  just  north  of  Haynes  Gulch.  The  east  side, 
sloping  into  Apperson  Creek,  is  very  steep  and  wooded  to  the  top  of 
the  ridge.  In  the  southwest  portion  there  are  650  acres  of  rather 
steep,  but  good,  open  grazing  land,  with  very  little  brush,  and  some 
large  oaks;  also  in  the  650  acres  is  a  small  valley  of  about  30  acres 
containing  very  good  soil.  The  soil  in  this  pasture  is  a  dark  adobe, 
with  rock  outcroppings  at  the  top  of  the  ridges.  Just  west  of  the  pas- 
ture are  about  200  acres  of  farming  land,  fairly  level,  the  soil  being  a 
black  adobe.  The  road  getting  into  the  200  acre  piece  is  very  steep. 
The  north  portion  of  this  property  includes  San  Antonio  Creek,  about 
300  acres,  all  of  which  is  fair  farming  land,  containing  about  60  acres 
of  waste ;  the  soil  is  reddish,  with  some  gravel. 

Along  the  Alameda  Creek  are  about  300  acres  of  farming  land, 
and  some  400  acres  in  the  creek  bottoms.  Practically  all  the  balance 
is  rugged  grazing  land,  with  some  undergrowth.  The  slope  to  the 
Alameda  Creek  is  very  steep  and  rocky.  Some  rocky  points.  Many 
small  valleys,  and  the  tops  of  the  hills  are  usually  rather  level.  Some 
parts  are  heavily  wooded,  large  oaks  and  other  trees.  3,314.04  acres 
at  $50  per  acre,  total  $165,702. 

Parcel  250  lies  on  both  slopes  of  the  Alameda  Creek;  includes  657 
creek  bottom  and  valley,  about  one-half  lying  on  each  side.  Is  steep 
and  wooded,  the  north  end  being  particularly  steep  and  rough.  Some 
portions  contain  some  very  good  grazing  land.  About  75  acres  of 
farming  land  fairly  flat.  About  50  acres  of  rolling  hills,  farming 
land.  About  175  acres  of  fair  pasture.  Considerable  rough  country. 
The  east  side  is  the  best.  Containing  small  flats  and  valleys.  1448.03 
acres  at  $25  per  acre,  total  $36,200.75. 

Parcel  264,  lies  on  the  west  slope  of  the  Alameda  Creek.  About 
25  acres  along  the  creek  bottom  that  is  very  good  for  that  character 
of  land;  can  be  used  for  farming;  is  tillable;  can  be  used  for  agri- 
cultural purposes.  The  balance  can  be  used  for  grazing.  Some 
rough  steep  land,  but  not  a  great  deal.  82.13  acres  at  $50  per  acre, 
total  $4,106.50. 

268-C,  lies  to  the  west  of  the  Alameda  Creek.  None  of  it  touches 
the  creek,  but  it  slopes  toward  it.  About  30  acres  of  it  is  excellent 
bottom  land  for  general  agricultural  purposes,  such  as  hay  and  grain 
raising.  The  balance  is  rolling.  About  200  acres  of  rolling  farm 
land,  red  soil,  fairly  good.  200  acres  of  fairly  good  grazing.  About 
50  acres  is  brushy,  with  chaparral.  494.89  acres  at  $75  per  acre, 
total  $37,016.75. 

191 


Gale 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

658  CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  STEINHART 

By  general  agricultural  purposes,  I  mean  any  purposes  the 
ordinary  farmer  uses  land  of  this  kind  for ;  I  mean  by  that  the  rais- 
ing of  hay  and  grain ;  he  may  raise  a  few  hogs  on  a  portion  of  it,  or 
something  like  that.  He  may  have  a  little  truck  garden  in  back  of 
his  house. 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  GREENE. 

268-D,  this  property  is  known  as  the  Mendoza  piece.  A  small 
portion  of  it  slopes  into  Alameda  Creek,  although  the  property  in 
itself  does  not  touch  the  creek.  It  is  all  rolling.  About  50  acres 
rather  steep  and  wooded.  About  100  acres  of  it  tillable.  150  acres 
is  good  grazing  land.  298.91  acres  at  $30  an  acre,  total  $8,967.30. 

Parcel  285,  known  as  'the  Dougherty  property;  slopes  east  to 
Alameda  Creek,  running  practically  to  the  high  water  mark.  I  think 
a  little  of  the  creek  runs  through  it  along  the  lower  edge.  30  acres 
farming  land,  and  about  65  acres  near  the  top  of  the  ridge  that  is 
good  grazing  land.  The  balance  is  wooded  and  steep.  137.33  acres 
at  $50  per  acre,  total  $6,866.50. 

659  Map  16,  parcel  223,  slopes  north  into  the  Alameda,  which  runs 
through  a  portion  of  it.     The  portion  sloping  into  the  Alameda  is 
very  steep  and  wooded.    The  remainder  of  the  property  rather  steep 
and  a  little  rough ;  some  excellent  open  grazing  land.    440  acres  at 
$15  an  acre,  total  $6,600. 

Parcel  225  lies  in  two  different  portions.  There  are  160  acres 
entirely  removed  from  the  main  portion  of  the  land.  This  property 
lies  on  both  slopes  of  the  north  end  of  the  Calaveras  Valley.  The 
west  side  heavily  wooded ;  has  some  steep,  deep  gulches  on  it.  It  is 
grazing  land ;  level,  and  with  very  little  wood  on  it. 

The  piece  that  is  isolated  from  the  other,  the  south  and  west 
40  acres,  being  80  acres  altogether,  is  open,  but  rough  and  rocky, 
while  the  other  portion  is  very  good  grazing  land.  Upon  both  pieces 
together,  1720  acres,  I  placed  a  valuation  of  $30  an  acre,  total  $51,600. 
The  total  includes  both  pieces. 

241-A,  half  of  this  property  lies  in  Alameda  County,  and  the 
other  half  in  Santa  Clara  County.  It  is  all  rolling  hills,  very  little 
wooded.  Practically  bare.  Some  places  are  rather  steep.  In  the 
steep  gulches  and  the  draws  there  is  some  wood.  The  southwest 

660  corner  faces  the  La  Honda  Creek ;  that  portion  is  steep  and  wooded. 
634.08  acres,  at  $20  per  acre,  total  $12,681.60. 

241-E,  lies  east  of  what  is  known  as  the  Weller  place.  It  slopes 
into  Calaveras  Valley ;  rough  on  the  slope  and  heavily  wooded,  par- 
ticularly in  the  gulches.  On  top  of  the  hills  there  is  good  grazing 
land,  which  is  very  good.  240  acres  at  $25  per  acre,  total  $6,000. 

241-F,  lies  mostly  on  the  southern  slope  of  the  Alameda  Creek, 
a  small  portion  on  the  northeast,  the  creek  running  through  it. 

192 


Gale 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

It  is  fairly  level.  The  portion  in  the  creek  is  very  gravelly.  There 
is  some  woods  on  the  property.  40  acres  at  $25  per  acre,  total  $1000. 
By  fairly  level,  I  mean  that  it  is  not  as  steep  and  as  badly  cut  up 
as  some  of  the  other  portions.  It  is  not  level  land  by  any  means ;  it 
lies  on  the  slope.  Down  in  a  country  like  around  Pleasanton,  it 
would  be  considered  steep  land. 

Parcel  246,  lies  in  what  is  known  as  section  18,  it  is  an  ell-shaped 
piece  of  property;  very  open  and  rolling;  grazing  land.  I  don't 
know  what  the  elevation  is,  exactly,  but  all  the  property  lying  be- 
tween the  Alameda  and  the  La  Honda  is  at  quite  an  elevation ;  the 
drop  into  the  creeks  is  steep.  It  practically  lies  along  the  top  of  the  661 
ridge.  The  northeast  quarter  slopes  into  Alameda  Creek,  and  is 
steep  and  wooded.  474.12  acres  at  $20  per  acre,  $9,482.40. 

Parcel  251,  the  Alameda  Creek  flows  through  the  northeast 
corner  of  this  property ;  the  slope  into  the  Alameda  Creek  is  rough, 
steep  and  wooded ;  other  portions  of  the  property  are  rough,  steep 
and  wooded.  There  are  about  1000  acres  of  farming  land  upon  the 
property.  There  is  some  very  fair  grazing  land.  1062.95  acres  at 
$25  an  acre,  total  $26,573.75.  This  piece  of  property  is  reached  by 
taking  the  road  from  Mission  San  Jose.  A  small  portion  in  the 
middle  of  it  is  owned  by  Mr.  Metcalf,  I  believe  some  5  acres.  The 
road  from  Mission  San  Jose  is  the  easiest  way  of  reaching  it. 

Parcel  258,  lies  on  the  south  slope  of  the  Alameda  Creek.  The 
portion  sloping  into  the  creek  is  very  rough.  The  remainder  is  very 
good.  The  land  that  is  grazing  land  upon  that  portion  is  very  good. 
151  acres  at  $15  per  acre,  total  $2,265.  662 

268-p,  practically  all  lies  on  the  top  of  what  is  known  as  Poverty 
Eidge.  It  is  all  open,  good  grazing  land,  160  acres  at  $20  per  acre, 
total  $3200.  There  is  a  small  portion  of  it  sloping  into  La  Honda 
that  has  a  little  brush  on  it,  but  it  is  a  very  small  portion. 

TWELFTH  HEARING  JULY  29,  1915. 

Witness  C.  A.  GALE. 
(Certain  corrections  noted  in  the  transcript.)  663-664 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  GREENE. 

268-W,  known  as  the  Weller  property,  lies  on  the  ridge  and  on 
the  slope  to  the  Calaveras  on  west  side  of  the  valley.  Portions  rather 
heavily  wooded.  Lots  of  it  good  open  grazing  ground.  About  250 
acres,  tillable.  One  large,  fine  spring  on  it.  646.75  acres  at  $30  per 
acre,  total  $19,402.50. 

268-X,  this  is  the  Santos  property,  lying  on  west  slope  and  top       665 
of  the  ridge  of  Calaveras  valley;  open  rolling  grazing  land.     Por- 
tion on  east  side  rather  steep.    The  soil  is  fair.    396.64  acres  at  $30 
per  acre,  total  $11,899.20. 

268- Y,  rather  steep  in  places  and  rough.     Considerable  wood, 

193 


Gale 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

sage  brush.  The  grazing  land  is  none  too  good,  although  fair.  120 
acres  at  $15  per  acre,  total  $1800. 

(The  bench  marks  of  the  proposed  reservoir,  looking  at  this 
map,  are  indicated  at  the  800  foot  line.) 

Parcel  295,  Jacobson  property,  slopes  south  into  Alameda  Creek, 
the  creek  running  through  the  lower  end  of  it.  The  property  is  open, 
about  50  acres  tillable.  The  uses  are  grazing,  and  general  agricul- 
tural purposes.  320  acres  at  $25  per  acre,  total  $8,000. 

Questioned  by  Master. 

That  is  in  what  is  called  the  Upper  Alameda,  it  lies  on  the  north 
slope. 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.   GREENE. 

Parcel  320.  The  Calaveras  and  LaHonda  Creeks  fork  on  the 
northeast  line  on  this  property.  50  acres  are  good  farming  land ;  the 
balance  is  wooded  in  portions.  About  20  acres  of  it  very  gravelly 
soil ;  about  60  acres  lying  on  the  west  slope  of  the  valley.  120  acres 
at  $60  per  acre,  total  $7,200. 

666  Parcel  322,  slopes  east  into  the  Calaveras  Valley.    One  branch 

of  the  creek  running  through  it.  60  acres  fair  farming  land;  40 
acres  rolling  and  flat  farming  land ;  balance  grazing  land ;  some  steep 
gulches.  160  acres  at  $75  per  acre,  total  $12,000. 

Parcel  323,  50  acres  are  hills,  and  heavily  wooded.  The  floor  of 
the  valley  is  excellent  farming  land;  soil  sandy  and  black  loam 
mixed.  200  acres  at  $150  per  acre,  total  $30,000. 

Parcel  324,  known  as  the  Harris  property;  about  60  acres  lie 
on  the  west  slope  of  the  valley.  All  of  the  property  can  be  farmed. 
The  floor  of  the  valley  to  the  east  of  the  road  is  exceptionally  good 
land;  the  balance  is  hay  land.  160  acres  at  $200  per  acre,  total 
$32,000. 

Parcel  325;  both  the  Calaveras  and  the  LaHonda  run  through 
this  property ;  about  15  acres  in  prune  orchard.  Creek  bottoms  are 
wide  and  gravelly.  A  portion  lies  upon  the  east  slope  of  the  valley, 
and  some  portions  can  only  be  used  for  grazing  purposes.  800  acres 
at  $55  an  acre,  total  $44,000. 

Questioned  by  Mr.  McCutchen. 

That  was  originally  the  Gaynes  property. 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  GREENE. 

Parcel  327,  Cedarbloom  property,  lies  upon  west  slope  of  the 

gg7        valley.    The  larger  portion  lies  on  a  hill  pointing  out  into  the  valley. 

Rather  steep,  grazing  land,  but  very  good.    Some  rough  country  in 

the  northern  portion,  wooded ;  the  balance  is  open ;  some  large  oak 

trees  scattered  through  it.    80  acres  at  $30  an  acre,  total  $2400. 

Parcel  328,  Rasmussen  property;  the  LaHonda  Creek  runs 
through  it;  slopes  north  and  south  thereon;  rough  and  wooded  in 

194 


Gale 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

portions ;  fair  grazing  land  as  to  the  remainder.    200  acres  at  $12.50 
per  acre,  total  $2500. 

Parcel  329,  also  known  as  the  Rasmussen  property;  lies  adja- 
cent to,  and  is  very  similar  to  property  in  328.  40  acres  at  $12.50 
per  acre,  total  $500. 

Map  17,  parcel  241-B ;  this  is  one  of  the  Crocker  &  Dillon  sec- 
tions. Larger  portion  of  it  lies  upon  north  slope  of  Arroyo  LaHonda 
Creek;  balance  in  creek  and  on  south  slope.  Rough,  steep;  portions 
heavily  brushed;  about  200  acres  good  grazing  land.  640  acres  at 
$10  per  acre,  total  $6,400. 

Parcel  268-e,  known  as  the  Beverson  Tract,  lies  along  the  ridge 
between  the  Alameda  Creek  and  the  Arroyo  Honda.  Some  portions 
steep,  but  as  a  whole  fair  grazing  land.  Very  little  wood  upon  it. 
320  acres  at  $15  per  acre,  total  $4800.  668 

Parcel  268-q,  lies  in  the  upper  portion  of  the  north  slope  of  the 
Arroyo  Honda  Creek ;  a  portion  rather  rough  and  steep.  Large  rocky 
cliff  lies  upon  section  28 ;  I  think  only  a  very  small  portion  of  the 
cliff  lies  upon  this  piece  of  property.  Not  as  good  grazing  as  268-r. 
160  acres  at  $12  per  acre,  total  $1,920. 

268-r,  lies  immediately  north  of  268-q,  near  the  top  of  north 
slope  of  Arroyo  Honda  Creek;  rather  steep  and  somewhat  wooded. 
In  placing  a  valuation  upon  both  "r"  and  "q",  I  considered  them 
as  a  whole,  and  placed  a  valuation  upon  268-r  in  a  like  amount  as  I 
did  on  268-q.  320  acres  at  $12  per  acre,  total  $3,840. 

(There  is  another  268-r,  containing  160  acres,  adjoining  the  first 
one.) 

Parcel  268-r,  lies  in  section  22.  A  portion  lies  upon  top  of  the 
ridge.  A  portion  slopes  into  Alameda  Creek.  The  slope  into  Ala- 
meda Creek  is  steep  and  wooded.  160  acres  at  $10  per  acre,  total 
$1600. 

268-s,  lies  north  of  Oak  Ridge  road,  and  slopes  into  Alameda 
Creek;  steep,  considerable  wood,  but  has  some  open  grazing  spots 
that  are  very  good.  80  acres  at  $10  per  acre,  total  $800. 

268-t,  this  is  an  irregular  ell-shaped  piece  lying  to  the  north        669 
of  Oak  Ridge  road ;  heavily  wooded ;  rather  steep  in  portions ;  other 
portions  contain  fair  open  grazing  land.     There  is  a  small  orchard 
of  about  one-quarter  of  an  acre.     280  acres  at  $10  per  acre,  total 


268-u,  slopes  into  the  Alameda  Creek,  one  of  the  tributaries  of 
the  Alameda  running  through  it;  steep  and  wooded;  some  open 
grazing  land.  I  stated  that  on  268-t  there  was  a  small  orchard;  I 
believe  that  that  orchard  lies  upon  268-u,  and  not  upon  268-t.  160 
acres  at  $10  per  acre,  total  $1600. 

268-E ;  there  are  three  parcels  of  that,  I  believe.  Taking  the  first 
parcel  320  acres,  it  lies  upon  the  north  slope,  or  just  north  of  the 
Alameda  Creek,  sloping  toward  Alameda  Creek ;  portions  have  some 

195 


Gale 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

wood  on  it.    Some  good  open  grazing  land.    The  soil  is  not  of  very 
great  depth,  however.    320  acres  at  $17.50  per  acre,  total  $5,600. 

The  next  is  the  140  acre  piece.  This  is  one  of  the  Mendoza 
properties ;  lies  on  the  north  slope  of  the  Alameda  Creek.  About  20 

670  acres  near  the  creek  is  farming  land ;  balance  is  rough  and  wooded  in 
spots,  but  fair  grazing  land.  140  acres  at  $17.50  per  acre,  total  $2,450. 

The  next  is  the  160  acre  piece.  This  is  about  3  miles  or  2^ 
miles  remote  from  the  other  property  of  the  company ;  lies  on  Pine 
Ridge,  and  is  practically  the  highest  point  upon  the  ridge.  The 
larger  portion  lies  a  little  bit  to  the  north  of  the  ridge.  The  property 
is  steep,  rather  rough ;  a  small  part  of  it  is  grazing  land.  It  is  very 
wooded.  160  acres  at  $3  per  acre,  total  $480. 

268-F;  there  are  two  parcels  under  that  number.  This  is  the 
Andrews  and  Hughes  property.  The  piece  containing  320  acres  lies 
upon  the  north  slope  of  Alameda  Creek ;  it  does  not  touch  the  creek. 
Contains  20  acres  of  farming  land ;  the  balance  is  fair  grazing,  some 
woods  and  sagebrush.  320  acres  at  $15  per  acre,  total  $4,800. 

The  piece  containing  20.20  acres  is  practically  all  flat  land ; 
there  is  a  small  orchard  on  it ;  it  has  been  used  for  farming ;  for 
hay.  20.20  acres  at  $25  an  acre,  total  $505. 

In  connection  with  this  property  marked  268-E,  and  268-F, 
excepting  on  268-E,  containing  160  acres,  in  placing  my  valuation, 
I  considered  each  piece  as  a  part  of  the  whole  of  those  properties. 

671  268-G,  lies  on  both  sides  of  Alameda  Creek,  the  Alameda  Creek 
running  through  it.    A  three-quarter  section  piece,  ell-shaped,  both 
sides  are  somewhat  rough.    Some  wood  on  them.     Some  sagebrush, 
some  fair  grazing  land.     On  this  property  I  placed  a  valuation  of 
$12.50  an  acre,  or  a  total  of  $6,000. 

268-H,  lies  on  the  top  of  what  is  known  as  Oak  Ridge.  Highest 
point  is  about  2900  feet.  Some  small  portions  that  are  steep;  the 
balance  is  excellent  open  grazing  land.  320  acres  at  $18  an  acre, 
total  $5,760. 

Map  18,  241-D,  lies  along  the  ridge  between  the  Arroyo  Honda 
and  Calaveras  Creeks.  The  Marsh  Road  passes  through  it.  All 
open  and  good  grazing  land;  small  portion  of  it  is  heavily  wooded. 
The  property  on  this  ridge  is  a  little  steeper  than  that  upon  Oak 
Ridge.  244.22  acres  at  $20  per  acre,  total  $4,884.40. 

268-a;  this  is  the  Brandt  property,  lying  along  the  ridge  upon 
which  the  Weller  road  runs,  on  the  west  side  of  Calaveras  Valley. 
Practically  all  of  it  can  be  farmed,  tilled;  some  rock  outcroppings. 
15  acres  at  $30  per  acre,  total  $450. 

268-b,  Brandt-Hansen  property.  About  100  acres  rolling  farm 
land ;  very  red  soil ;  balance  good  open  grazing  country.  Small  por- 
tion on  the  south  side  is  rocky.  North  edge  is  steep  and  rough. 

672  197.31  acres  at  $65  per  acre,  total  $12,825.15. 

268-c,  lies  upon  the  west  side  of  the  Calaveras  Valley,  sloping 

196 


Gale 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

into  it.    About  half  is  farming  land ;  the  balance  open  grazing  coun- 
try, good.    155.42  acres  at  $60  an  acre,  total  $9,325.20. 

268-e,  Beverson  property.  Slopes  east  to  Calaveras  Valley ;  open 
rolling  land ;  some  gravel ;  some  wood ;  about  15  or  20  acres  rather 
steep.  82.88  acres  at  $60  per  acre,  total  $4,972.80. 

268-f,  known  as  the  King  property,  lies  right  near  the  road        673 
leading  into  Calaveras,  known  as  the  Calaveras  Road.    Portions  are 
very  heavily  wooded;  other  portions  are  tillable,  although  rather 
steep  in  portions.    85.63  acres  at  $60  per  acre,  total  $5,137.80. 

268-g,  known  as  the  Patton  property.  Open  rolling  land;  prac- 
tically all  can  be  farmed.  About  4  acres  of  mixed  orchard.  The  soil 
is  rather  light.  160  acres  at  $65  per  acre,  total  $10,400. 

268-h,  the  White-Gabriel  property ;  about  20  acres  in  the  north- 
west corner  is  farming  land ;  the  balance  heavily  wooded  in  portions, 
and  rough ;  some  open  land.  120  acres  at  $30  per  acre,  total  $3600. 

268-i,  185  acres  of  this  land  is  farming  land;  the  balance  open 
grazing  land;  slopes  east  into  Calaveras  Valley;  lies  on  both  sides 
of  the  Sierra  Road.  That  is  at  the  southern  portion  of  the  Cala- 
veras Valley.  273.24  acres  at  $50  per  acre,  total  $13,662. 

(The  acreage  on  the  above  parcel  was  corrected  to  read  263.34, 
and  the  extension  for  the  total  valuation  to  $13,167.    This  correction        674 
was  made  on  the  face  of  the  record.) 

268- j,  known  as  the  Williams  property.  Lies  on  east  side  of  the 
Calaveras  Valley.  About  60  acres  of  farming  land.  The  balance  is 
grazing.  80  acres  at  $60  per  acre,  total  $4,800. 

268-k,  also  known  as  the  Williams  property.  Lies  immediately 
adjacent  to  268- j,  but  there  is  less  farming  land  on  this  piece.  80  acres 
at  $40  per  acre,  total  $3,200. 

268-1,  lies  upon  the  south-easterly  slope  of  the  valley,  Calaveras 
Creek  running  through  it.  About  60  acres  of  farming  land  near  the 
flat ;  about  60  acres  is  farming  land  on  the  ridge ;  about  100  acres  is 
good,  open  grazing  land,  with  some  wood  on  it.  About  100  acres  rough 
and  steep,  with  some  gulches.  321.44  acres  at  $50  per  acre,  total 
$16,072. 

268-m ;  this  is  the  Garick  property.    Lies  in  two  pieces  connecting       675 
at  the  corner.    The  smaller  portion  contains,  I  believe,  20  acres,  some 
farming  land;  balance  wooded  and  rough;  some  good  grazing  land. 
180  acres  at  $25  per  acre,  total  $4,500. 

268-n,  this  is  the  Fererra  property.  Open  grazing  land;  some 
good  vineyards  surrounding  this  property.  58.25  acres  at  $30  per 
.acre,  total  $1,747.50. 

268-o,  the  E.  B.  &  A.  L.  Stone  piece;  lies  at  the  extreme  south- 
'  easterly  end  of  the  Calaveras  Valley.    Lots  of  brush  and  trees  on  it. 
9.06  acres  at  $10  per  acre,  total  $90.60. 

268-p,  lies  on  south  slope  of  the  Arroyo  Honda.  Grazing  land, 
some  canyon.  There  are  gulches  in  it ;  some  portions  steep  and  wooded. 

197 


Gale  SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

676  The  portion  containing  480  acres,  I  valued  at  $20  per  acre,  and  the 
portion  containing  221.26  acres  I  valued  at  $20  per  acre,  or  a  total  valu- 
ation for  the  entire  701.26  acres  of  $14,025.20.     I  placed  an  average 
value  of  $20  per  acre  on  the  combined  pieces.    The  480  acre  piece  slopes 
into  the  La  Honda ;  a  portion  of  it  lying  on  the  top  of  the  ridge.  There 
is  a  good  deal  of  open  grazing  land  upon  it,  but  with  some  wood.    The 
other  portion  of  221.26  acres,  is  practically  open  grazing  land ;  steep 
in  some  portions. 

268-y,  lies  on  south  slope  of  the  Arroyo  Honda  Creek ;  open  graz- 
ing land,  practically  lies  upon  the  ridge.  More  on  the  south  slope  of 
La  Honda  than  upon  the  north  slope  of  Calaveras.  Open  grazing  land ; 
some  canyons  in  it ;  some  little  wood.  160  acres  at  $20  per  acre,  total 
$3,200. 

677  268-Z,  lies  on  the  west  slope  of  the  Calaveras  Valley.    It  is  grazing 
land,  steep  in  portions.    Some  wood  and  timber.    40  acres  at  $20  an 
acre,  total  $800. 

321,  about  140  acres  lies  in  the  valley.  It  is  situated  in  the  Calav- 
eras Valley,  and  runs  on  both  slopes  of  the  valley,  and  entirely  across 
it.  About  217  acres  upon  the  east  slope,  and  about  135  acres  on  the  west 
slope.  The  entire  property  is  of  fair  soil.  The  property  in  the  valley 
is  of  excellent  soil.  The  property  on  the  west  slope  can  practically  all 
be  farmed.  The  east  slope  is  not  as  good  as  the  other,  but  is  very  fair 
grazing  land.  A  portion  of  it  is  tillable.  492.90  acres  at  $100  per  acre, 
total  $49,290. 

(The  witness  here  corrected  his  statement  that  the  217  acres  were 
on  the  east  slope,  to  the  effect  that  he  should  have  said  on  the  west 
slope,  and  the  135  acres  on  the  east  slope.) 

678  330;  this  is  the  John  Sherman  property.     Lies  in  the  south  end 
of  the  valley ;  about  100  acres  of  it  is  level ;  the  balance  is  rolling  land. 
Practically  all  can  be  farmed  for  general  agricultural  purposes;  the 
bottom  land  is  very  good.    311  acres  at  $100  per  acre,  total  $31,100. 

331,  this  is  the  Sherman  property;  lies  at  the  south  end  of  the 
valley;  about  70  acres  in  the  valley,  and  about  70  acres  on  a  gradual 
slope  out  of  the  valley ;  20  acres  rolling,  and  in  this  20  acres  is  a  steep 
gulch.  160  acres  at  $90  per  acre,  total  $14,400. 

345- A ;  the  Calaveras  Creek  runs  through  this  property,  the  forks 
joining.  Considerable  gravel ;  soil  rather  reddish.  About  40  acres  till- 
able. The  creeks  have  considerable  timber  on  them.  North  portion  is 

679  open,  good  grazing  land.    79.33  acres  at  $45  per  acre,  total  $3,569.85. 

Map  18-A,  241-C ;  this  is  known  as  section  33.  The  Arroyo  Honda 
runs  diagonally  through  this  property.  The  southwest  slopes  are  steep 
and  heavily  wooded,  but  contain  some  open  grazing  land.  North  slope 
is  very  steep.  This  entire  property,  lying  along  on  both  slopes  of  La 
Honda,  is  steep  and  wooded.  640  acres  at  $6  per  acre,  total  $3,840. 

268-e ;  another  piece  of  the  Beverson  property.  Lies  on  top  of  the 
ridge  between  La  Honda  and  Alameda.  The  highest  point  on  this 

198 


Gale 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

piece  is  3,200  feet  above  the  sea-level.  Some  of  it,  particularly  the 
slope  into  Alameda  Creek,  is  steep,  rough,  some  wood  and  brush.  From 
one-third  to  one-fourth  is  good,  open  grazing  land.  640  acres  at  $12 
per  acre,  total  $7,680. 

268-p,  the  first  one  is  a  piece  containing  480  acres,  section  10. 
There  are  about  300  acres  of  this  section  which  slope  into  Arroyo 
Honda ;  that  is  steep  and  wooded.  The  balance  of  it  is  practically  all 
good,  open  grazing  country.  A  portion  of  it  is  a  little  bit  rough.  480 
acres  at  $10  per  acre,  total  $4800  for  the  entire  piece.  (The  list  showed 
a  valuation  of  $8  per  acre  on  this  piece,  but  was  wrong  in  that  respect ; 
the  proper  valuation  being  $10  per  acre.)  680 

The  other  piece,  known  as  section  4,  the  portion  sloping  into 
Arroyo  Honda  is  very  steep  and  wooded.  About  50  acres  in  the  north- 
west corner  of  this  property,  and  about  200  other  acres  that  is  open 
grazing  land,  and  with  fair  feed.  643.80  acres  at  $10  per  acre,  total 
$6,438. 

268-r,  320  acres  in  section  34 ;  lies  south  of  the  Oak  Ridge  Road, 
on  top  of  the  north  slope  of  Arroyo  Honda  Creek ;  all  rolling,  but  has 
some  good,  flat  grazing  land  on  it;  portions  of  it  wooded.  320  acres 
at  $10  per  acre,  total  $3,200. 

268-v,  there  are  two  parcels  in  that.  The  smaller  parcel,  150  acres, 
the  La  Honda  Creek  runs  through ;  the  slopes  directly  into  La  Honda 
are  rather  wooded  and  steep.  160  acres  at  $6  per  acre,  total  $960. 

The  other  portion,  containing  480.24  acres,  lies  in  the  southeast 
corner  of  section  2.  It  is  marked  in  yellow ;  there  is  a  blue  strip  con- 
taining 160  acres  lying  just  to  the  east  of  it.  The  forks  of  La  Honda 
lie  upon  it ;  both  sides  are  steep  and  wooded.  480.24  acres  at  $4  per 
acre,  total  $1920.96. 

268-w,  slopes  into  La  Honda,  and  is  known  as  the  Russel  property. 
Steep ;  some  grazing  on  it ;  brushy.  160  acres  at  $5  per  acre,  total  $800.  681 

268-x,  lies  adjoining  268-v;  if  anything  it  is  rougher  and  steeper 
than  268-v ;  it  has  more  wood  upon  it  possibly.  160.72  acres  at  $3  per 
acre,  total  $482.16. 

To  explain  the  reason  for  the  varying  amounts  which  I  have  named 
as  the  value  of  the  properties  primarily  susceptible  for  grazing  use, 
leaving  out  of  consideration  whatever  value  they  may  have  for  water 
purposes;  some  of  the  parcels  are  open,  rolling  grazing  land.  Others 
have  the  entire  portion  open,  with  very  little  wood  on  it ;  a  few  large 
trees ;  other  portions  are  open  grazing  land  in  portions,  and  the  larger 
portion  of  them  may  be  heavily  wooded  and  very  steep,  and  running 
into  the  creeks.  I  also  took  into  consideration,  at  the  time  of  the  ap- 
praisement, the  feed  that  grows  upon  the  property ;  also  the  amount 
of  acreage  which  could  be  used,  and  the  advantages  for  grazing.  Of 
course,  the  entire  acreage,  even  when  there  is  brush  upon  it,  can  be 
used  for  grazing  purposes,  but  the  portions  that  have  brush  upon  them 
are  not  as  good  as  the  portions  that  are  open. 

199 


Gale 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

I  have  known  the  property  in  the  Calaveras  Valley,  between  the 
Alameda  and  La  Honda,  and  between  the  Arroyo  Honda  and  Calav- 

682  eras,  for  a  good  many  years.    I  have  fished  and  hunted  over  all  those 
properties.    I  have  camped  for  a  number  of  days  on  La  Honda  Creek. 
I  know  of  sales,  and  have  known  of  sales  somewhat  similar  in  nature 
to  those  lands  and  properties.     I  have  made  it  a  practice  to  keep  in 
touch  with  the  values  wherever  I  have  gone.    From  my  general  knowl- 
edge of  lands  and  land  values,  and  their  uses,  I  made  my  valuation 
upon  the  properties.     I  have  not  sold  land  in  Santa  Clara  County 
similar  in  character  to  this,  but  have  sold  lands  in  Alameda  County 
that  were  somewhat  similar,  but  of  a  higher  value.    I  have  known  of 
lands  that  have  been  sold  that  are  very  similar  in  nature  to  these  lands, 
and  what  the  purchase  and  selling  price  were. 

Map  10,  parcel  276,  lies  within  the  town  limits  of  the  town  of 
Pleasanton,  and  immediately  across  Kose  Avenue  from  the  race  track. 
Very  fine  piece  of  land.  Practically  a  sediment  fill  from  the  wash  of 
the  creeks  in  years  back.  Practically  no  gravel  whatever  in  it.  The 
property  surrounding  it  is  being  bought  and  sold  for  residence  pur- 
poses. This  property  I  valued  at  $750  an  acre,  or  a  total  valuation  for 
the  entire  piece,  containing  16.44  acres  at  $12^330. 

683  Parcel  270  lies  west  of  the  County  Road  leading  from  Pleasanton 
to  Santa  Rita.     The  character  of  the  land  is  bottom  land;  rich;  por- 
tions of  it  rather  wet ;  a  portion  of  it  has  been,  and  I  believe  now  is  in 
alfalfa.    The  remainder  has  been  used  as  a  pasture  land  for  pasturing 
some  of  the  race  track  horses  on.    102.28  acres  at  $300  per  acre,  total 
$30,684. 

Owing  to  errors,  the  table  will  have  to  be  revised.  When  it  is 
presented  it  will  be  marked  "Plaintiff's  Exhibit  No.  28". 

I  have  been  furnished,  by  the  engineers  of  the  company,  with  the 

684  proposed  acreages  which  will  be  covered  by  water  in  the  Calaveras  Val- 
ley, and  have  segregated  the  values  which  I  have  already  given  for 
parcels  which  would  lie  in  the  reservoir.    The  values  which  I  have  put 
on  the  portion  of  each  parcel,  to  which  I  have  just  referred,  are  the 
same  values  which  I  have  already  testified  to. 

Referring  to  a  tabulation  containing  various  columns,  the  first 
being  "The  map",  second  "The  parcel",  third  "Total  acreage", 
fourth  ' '  Reservoir  acres ' ',  fifth  ' '  Value  per  acre ' ',  sixth  ' '  Total ' ',  and 
the  last  column  not  being  headed,  but  stating  the  general  description 
of  the  properties ;  this  was  prepared  by  me,  with  the  exception  of  the 
data  as  to  acreage.  The  entire  table,  with  the  exception  of  column  4, 
was  prepared  by  me.  The  amounts  appearing  in  column  5  are  the 
amounts  that  I  placed  per  acre  upon  the  acreage  lying  in  the  proposed 
reservoir  site,  and  those  appearing  in  columns  6  are  the  totals  of  the 
acreage,  multiplied  by  the  value  per  acre,  making  the  total  for  the 

685  entire  acreage  set  forth  in  column  four. 

200 


Gale 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

( Counsel  for  Plaintiff  here  stated  that  the  reservoir  acreage  would 
be  proved,  either  by  Mr.  Sharon,  or  one  of  the  other  engineers.) 

In  appraising  these  properties,  I  did  not  take  into  consideration 
their  value  as  reservoir  or  water  producing  properties.  I  appraised 
them  simply  as  lands  to  be  used  for  general  agricultural  purposes,  and 
their  value  to  an  individual  purchaser. 

Questioned  by  Master. 

Where  I  have  placed  this  valuation  of  this  reservoir  acreage  here, 
it  is  not  the  value  I  have  used  for  the  whole  of  the  parcels.    It  is  natur- 
ally the  best  land  in  most  cases,  and  I  took  and  based  my  figures,  given 
in  this  memorandum,  on  values  which  I  placed  upon  those  same  lands       686 
in  appraising  the  entire  parcel. 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.   GREENE. 

In  the  way  I  stated,  I  made  special  figures ;  I  took  practically  the 
figures  I  used  in  appraising  the  entire  parcel,  where  I  had  the  subdi- 
visions of  the  farming  lands,  and  figured  that  as  to  how  much  of  those 
lands  that  I  appraised  at  a  certain  figure,  were  in  this  reservoir  site, 
and  used  those  figures. 

The  total  value  that  I  placed  upon  the  lands  lying  within  the  res- 
ervoir acreage,  was  $188,525,  and  the  total  acreage  within  the  pro- 
posed reservoir,  as  given  me  by  the  engineers,  was  1,927.80  acres.  Mak- 
ing a  per  acreage  value  of  $97.83  per  acre.  Offered  and  marked  "Plain- 
tiff's  Exhibit  No.  29",  subject  to  proof  of  the  figures  as  to  acreage. 

I  gave  the  lands,  which  will  lie  within  the  San  Antonio  Reservoir, 
the  same  treatment.  The  acreage  as  given  me  by  the  engineers,  as  lying 
in  the  proposed  San  Antonio  site,  is  656  acres.  At  the  rate  of  $56.36 
per  acre,  I  find  the  value  of  $36,976.  This  table  was  prepared  under 
my  direction,  with  the  exception  of  column  4,  covering  the  reservoir  687 
acreages. 

Offered  in  evidence  and  marked  "Plaintiff's  Exhibit  30". 

The  values  which  are  shown  on  "Plaintiff's  Exhibit  30"  and 
' '  Plaintiff 's  Exhibit  29 ' ',  in  the  fifth  columns,  respectively,  correspond 
with  my  valuation,  as  given  in  my  previous  testimony,  to  this  extent : 
In  the  previous  testimony  I  valued  the  entire  parcel,  using  the  same 
figures  that  I  used  in  this  valuation  to  value  the  entire  parcel. 

(The  following  caption,  appearing  on  "Plaintiff's  Exhibit  29" 
and  "Plaintiff's  Exhibit  30",  was  stricken  out  at  the  request  of  coun-        688 
sel  for  Plaintiff;  "This  appraisement  is  made  from  values  heretofore 
placed  on  properties  lying  therein  in  appraisement  of  entire  subdi- 
vision, and  only  the  value  thereof  is  used".) 

My  testimony  with  respect  to  the  Arroyo  del  Valle  properties 
would  be  just  the  same  as  respecting  these  other  exhibits.  The  total 
acreage  given  me  was  630  acres.  The  total  valuation  that  I  placed 
thereon  was  $15,477,  or  $24.56  per  acre. 

201 


Gale 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

Offered  in  evidence,  and  admitted,  (Striking  out  the  caption,  as 
above)  as  ''Plaintiff's  Exhibit  31". 

689  I  have  caused  a  segregation  to  be  made  of  the  properties  which  I 
valued  yesterday ;  I  took  all  the  properties  on  map  10,  and  268-N,  and 
parcel  247  on  map  14,  and  had  them  segregated,  and  the  total  amount 
at  which  I  appraised  them  put  in.    That  was  the  second  segregation. 
The  first  segregation  was  all  of  the  properties  of  the  Arroyo  del  Valle, 
shown  on  map  14,  excepting  lots  numbered  268-N  and  247.    Then  I  took 
all  the  upper  portion  of  the  Alameda  and  San  Antonio,  the  Calaveras 
and  Sunol;  that  would  be  shown  on  map  16,  17,  18,  18-a  and  12,  ex- 
cepting that  on  map  12  I  did  not  take  in  267  and  239-P.    I  also  took 
the  parcels  shown  on  map  11,  including  the  property  lying  in  the  town 
of  Niles,  or  adjacent  thereto,  and  that  long  narrow  strip,  No.  237,  that 
is  used  for  agricultural  purposes,  and  excepting  the  creek  bottoms, 
which  I  testified  that  I  did  not  appraise,  and  made  a  segregation  of 
them.    That  makes  four  segregations. 

690  On  the  Arroyo  del  Valle  the  total  acreage  is  4,344.50 ;  total  value 
$84,063.50;  at  the  rate  of  $19.35  per  acre.     The  properties  included 
under  that  segregation  could  be  sold  at  that  price. 

The  Pleasanton  properties,  containing  5,988.499  acres,  at  a  total 
valuation  of  $2,072,158.77,  or  $346  per  acre,  are  the  second  segre- 
gation. 

The  third  segregation,  the  Upper  Alameda,  San  Antonio,  Calav- 
eras and  the  Sunol  properties,  excepting  those  parcels  I  mentioned, 
containing  37,149.49  acres;  total  value  $1,651,506.96.  or  $44.45  per 
acre. 

The  other  segregation  is  the  property  shown  on  map  11.  I  found, 
excepting  those  parcels  I  mentioned  that  I  did  not  include,  642.4483 
acres,  of  a  total  valuation  $35,052.05.  These  valuations  were  made 
as  of  December  31,  1913,  and  when  I  put  these  values  upon  these  dif- 
ferent parcels,  I  meant  that  in  my  judgment,  these  properties  could 
be  sold  by  a  willing  seller  to  a  willing  purchaser,  for  the  amount  I 
have  valued  them  at. 

(Counsel  for  the  Defendant  here  advised  that  he  would  stipu- 
late that  if  any  omissions  were  discovered  in  the  examination,  the 
plaintiff  would  be  given  an  opportunity  to  fill  them  in.) 

691  CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.   STEINHART. 

I  believe  that  my  first  trip  into  the  Calaveras  was  about  fifteen 
years  ago,  and  since  that  time  off  and  on  I  have  been  continually  back 
and  forth  through  those  lands. 

Map  18-A,  parcel  268-p,  consisting  of  two  separate  parcels,  and 
valued  at  $10  an  acre,  can  be  used  for  grazing  purposes.  I  have  a 
record,  I  believe,  as  to  the  price  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Co.  paid 
for  those  properties,  but  in  my  appraisement  of  the  properties,  I  did 

692  not  take  that  into  consideration.     I  did  not  pay  any  attention  to  the 

202 


Gale 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

prices  that  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Co.  paid  for  the  land  in  Calav- 
eras, as  I  was  told  to  go  upon  these  properties,  and  appraise  them 
for  what  I  considered  them  worth,  placing  a  conservative  valuation 
thereon.  The  fact  of  a  certain  payment  being  made  by  the  Spring 
Valley  Water  Co.  for  these  lands,  would  not  affect  my  idea  of  the  value 
of  them  to  any  extent. 

(Counsel  for  Defendant  here  stated  that  the  Spring  Valley  paid 
for  these  properties,  on  April  1,  1911,  $8.31  an  acre,  which  figure  was 
agreed  to  as  correct  by  Counsel  for  the  Plaintiff.) 

I  don 't  think  that  I  ever  saw  the  figures  before,  and  now  having  693 
seen  them,  it  makes  no  difference  in  my  idea  of  the  market  value  of 
these  properties.  I  do  not  know  the  dates  of  the  various  purchases 
of  the  Spring  Valley  in  the  Calaveras.  I  could  not  tell  you  when 
Spring  Valley  first  began  to  acquire  land  in  the  Calaveras,  but  I  un- 
derstand that  they  purchased  some  land  in  there  in  1902,  but  they 
must  have  owned  land  there  prior  to  1902,  because  it  was  prior  to  that 
time  that  I  first  visited  the  Calaveras,  and  at  that  time,  they  owned 
some  land  or  had  some  interest  there.  I  obtained  my  information 
that  Spring  Valley  owned  land  at  that  time  in  Calaveras,  from  a 
gentleman  who  told  one  of  a  party  with  whom  I  was  camping  on  La 
Honda  Creek,  that  he  rented  some  land  from  the  Spring  Valley  in 
that  vicinity. 

Where  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Co.  has  paid  more  than  prices 
that  I  have  set  upon  the  land,  that  does  not.  make  any  difference  in 
my  valuation.  I  have  represented  the  Spring  Valley  in  purchases  in  694 
Pleasanton,  but  the  fact  that  Spring  Valley  paid  more  than  the  prices 
I  have  placed  on  these  lands,  would  not  influence  me  in  my  market 
valuation,  because  I  know  nothing  concerning  the  history  of  the  pur- 
chases. I  know  nothing  concerning  what  the  purchase  prices  were, 
the  acreage,  or  why  the  company  wanted  them,  nor  whether  the  owner 
of  the  property  knew  who  wanted  the  land,  and  for  that  reason  asked 
an  increased  amount.  Judging  from  some  sales  that  I  have  noticed, 
and  know  about,  I  think  in  some  instances  the  Spring  Valley  have 
possibly  paid  more  than  the  market  value  of  the  land.  I  do  not  say 
that  that  is  their  practice.  My  experience  only  is  in  the  Pleasanton  695 
properties.  In  some  instances  they  purchased  lands  in  the  Pleasanton 
District  at  a  very  low  figure ;  in  other  instances  they  paid  more  than 
the  market  value  at  the  time  of  the  purchase.  I  have  not  made  a  par- 
ticular study  of  that  phase  of  the  question,  and  without  so  doing,  and 
comparing  the  valuations,  I  would  not  be  able  to  give  an  answer  to 
that  question. 

I  ignored  all  sales  made  in  the  Calaveras  district  to  the  Spring 
Valley.  I  never  had  the  figures  of  the  sales  and  the  purchases,  and 
the  prices  paid  for  that  land.  The  term,  market  value,  means  what 
a  willing  purchaser  will  pay  to  a  willing  seller,  and  in  my  mind,  the 
best  test  is  what  a  willing  purchaser  will  pay  to  a  willing  seller  in  the 

203 


Gale 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

sale  of  land.  The  conditions  of  the  sale,  possibly  the  purposes  for 
which  the  property  was  bought,  would  all  be  considerations  I  would 
want  to  look  into  before  I  would  consider  the  sale  of  the  land.  The 

696  seller,  if  he  was  desirous  of  selling,  would  sell  it  at  what  he  could  get 
for  it  in  the  market.     The  best  evidence  of  the  market  price  of  that 
land,  a  sale  of  the  land  itself  not  having  been  made,  is  the  sales  of 
other  lands  of  similar  character  surrounding  it.    I  paid  no  attention 
to  any  of  the  sales  actually  lying  in  the  Calaveras,  to  the  Spring  Val- 
ley Water  Co.,  and  in  valuing  these  lands  around  the  Alameda  Creek 
below  Sunol,  I  excluded  the  river  bottom. 

You  refer  now  to  the  lands  on  map  11 ;  I  also  stated  at  that  time 
that  I  excluded  lands  lying  immediately  adjacent  to  the  high  water 
mark.  Possibly  back  a  distance  of  20  feet  in  some  places,  and  fifty 

697  feet  in  others.    I  was  taking  simply  those  lands  which  were  adjacent 
to,  and  practically  part  of  the  creek,  but  did  not  necessarily  include 
all  level  lands  by  the  bed  of  the  creek. 

Referring  to  the  character  of  the  land  along  Alameda  Creek  from 
Sunol  to  Niles;  the  lands  running  from  the  dam  down  to  Niles  in 
places  is  very  narrow,  and  the  sides  are  steep;  there  may  be  an  acre 
or  two  of  a  fairly  level  bench  along  the  side  of  the  hills;  in  other 
places  the  acreage  is  wider;  there  is  some  level  land  lying  in  the 
gorge.  Take  the  property  of  Mr.  Fusier,  in  Niles  Canyon,  it  is  prac- 
tically all  level  land ;  there  is  a  little  roll  to  it ;  it  is  all  on  a  slope,  but 
is  practically  all  level  land.  That  does  not  appear  upon  the  map. 
There  is  quite  a  stretch  along  the  Fusier  piece  also,  running  down  as 

698  far  as  Brightside.    That  is  not  a  part  of  the  Spring  Valley  land.  Then 
as  you  cross  at  Brightside,  there  is  quite  a  level  space  on  the  left  hand 
side  of  the  road,  going  from  Sunol  to  Niles,  and  as  you  go  all  the  way 
down,  and  round  the  first  tunnel  of  the  Western  Pacific,  there  also 
lies  in  there  a  small  stretch,  the  bulk  of  which  is  a  narrow  gorge,  and 
the  amount  of  level  land  is  comparatively  small. 

So  far  as  the  lands  of  the  company  are  concerned,  there  is  prac- 
tically no  level  land  by  the  creek.  That  piece  that  I  speak  of,  that 
lies  just  beyond  the  bridge  at  Brightside,  is  a  portion  of  the  Mehr- 
mann  property,  and  I  should  say,  roughly,  that  there  are  possibly 
ten  or  twelve  acres  in  there  that  is  fairly  level  property;  about  five 
acres  of  it  has  been  an  orchard.  In  these  valuations  of  lands  there 
have  been  no  other  exceptions  or  deductions  made  than  what  I  have 
testified  to.  I  have  not  deducted  from  the  total  acreage  of  the  parcels 

699  any  portion  of  the  land  and  left  it  out  of  my  appraisement.     I  rem- 
ember of  no  other  parcels  that  I  deducted  anything  from  in  the  way 
of  acreage.    I  deducted  the  creek  bed  in  this  location  because  at  the 
time  I  was  requested  to  make  an  appraisement  of  these  properties,  in- 
cluding the  creek  bed,  on  several  pieces,  which  had  long  narrow  strips 
in  the  creek  bed,  I  realized,  from  an  agricultural  standpoint  that  it 
was  almost  impossible  to  make  an  appraisement  of  the  properties,  and 

204 


Gale 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

that  I  had  no  knowledge  sufficient  to  allow  me  to  make  an  appraise- 
ment of  these  properties  for  any  purpose  whatever.  The  creek  in  itself 
was  of  no  benefit  to  the  balance  of  the  land,  owing  to  the  fact  that 
railroads  and  county  roads,  and  rights  of  way  shut  it  off  in  most  cases 
from  the  rest  of  the  land.  When  I  explained  the  situation  to  the 
attorneys  for  the  company,  I  asked  them  to  allow  me  to  appraise  the 
lands  without  taking  into  consideration  the  creek  bottoms,  and  they 
granted  me  that  permission.  I  requested  that  at  Alameda,  but  not 
where  La  Honda  runs,  or  where  the  Calaveras  runs,  or  the  Arroyo  del 
Valle.  I  considered  it  was  an  entirely  different  proposition  facing  me 
to  value  these  lands  including  those  streams.  In  the  Alameda,  in  the  700 
portion  I  deducted,  I  realized  that  there  was  another  value  to  those 
streams  other  than  I  was  capable  of  giving,  such  as  any  value  that  it 
might  have  for  water  purposes,  or  for  right  of  way  purposes. 

I  have  made  appraisements  for  the  Bank  of  Pleasanton,  and 
pass  upon  all  loans  made  by  that  bank,  and  in  doing  so,  seek  to 
value  the  property  at  its  market  value.  I  did  not  pass  upon  the 
loan  made  by  the  Bank  of  Pleasanton  to  Coopman,  but  am  familiar 
with  the  loan  made  to  Mrs.  Luther  Dickson,  which  amounted  to  701 
$2,000  on,  I  think,  considerably  over  200  acres.  I  did  not  make  any 
appraisement  on  that  property,  because  at  the  time  that  Mr.  Bene- 
dict, the  Cashier  of  the  Bank,  spoke  of  renewing  the  loan,  which  had 
been  a  loan  of  long  standing  with  the  bank,  he  told  me  that  the 
amount  of  it  was  about  $2,000,  and  as  it  was  so  small  on  such  a 
large  tract  of  land,  there  was  no  appraisement  made.  Mr.  Benedict  is 
also  very  familiar  with  lands  surrounding  Pleasanton,  and  often 
times  when  there  is  not  a  question  as  to  the  valuation,  he  does  not 
ask  me  to  pass  directly  upon  the  loans. 

Refering  to  parcel  239-L,  which  I  valued  at  $500  an  acre,  for  702 
alfalfa  and  gardening,  I  would  say  that  the  vegetable  use  was  the 
highest  use  that  I  considered  in  that  case.  It  was  a  higher  use  than 
the  alfalfa  use,  but  those  lands  are  good  vegetable  lands,  and  can 
raise  practically  most  of  the  vegetables  that  are  raised  in  that  703 
vicinity,  including  berries.  I  won't  say  that  berries  are  a  better  use, 
but  they  are  an  ordinary  use.  Those  lands  are  capable  of  growing 
any  and  all  sorts  of  vegetables,  but  there  are  some  vegetables,  I 
presume,  that  they  will  not  grow.  I  spoke  of  the  lands  as  vegetable 
lands,  meaning  ordinary  vegetables  grown  in  a  vegetable  garden. 
They  are  capable  of  growing  vegetables  at  all  seasons  of  the  year, 
according  to  the  seasons  that  the  vegetable  is  to  be  grown  in. 

I  cannot  say  as  to  239-L  that  I  have  ever  seen  vegetables  grown 
on  that  particular  land,  but  years  ago  there  were  several  Chinese  704 
garden  men  down  below  the  County  Road  2000  raising  vegetables 
and  berries.  Mrs.  Hearst,  who  owns  the  property  immediately  south 
of  this  portion,  has,  and  has  had  a  rather  extensive  vegetable  garden 
and  berry  garden.  As  to  whether  she  is  growing  them  at  the  pres- 

205 


Gale 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

ent  time  or  not,  I  do  not  know,  but  I  think  she  is.  I  know  that  for 
several  years  she  did  grow  vegetables  on  them.  They  are  not  grow- 
ing any  vegetables  on  the  Pleasanton  lands  of  the  company,  except 
in  small  portions;  a  man  renting  a  piece  of  property  may  have  an 
acre  in  vegetables.  Immediately  adjacent  to  the  company,  and  just 
across  the  bridge,  in  the  town  of  Pleasanton,  there  is  a  vegetable 
garden ;  on  the  road  to  Livermore,  about  half  a  mile  out  of  the  town 
of  Pleasanton,  there  is  another  vegetable  garden ;  immediately  across 
from  the  company's  lands  at  Santa  Rita  there  is  another  vegetable 
garden. 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  MCCUTCHEN. 

They  are  growing  vegetables  on  these  places,  and  peddling  them 
around  through  that  country,  running  regular  wagons,  and  selling 
the  vegetables  to  housekeepers. 

CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  STEINHART. 

705  I  would  not  say  that  this  land  is  inaccessible  to  the  market.  The 
train  service  through  there  is  very  good.    We  have  four  or  five  or 
six  trains  running  both  ways  each  day,  and  are  only  28  and  a  frac- 
tion miles  from  Oakland.    I  presume  the  commission  houses  in  San 
Francisco  and  Oakland  would  be  the  market,  which  is  the  same 
market  that  the  vegetable  land  around  Niles  and  down  through 
Milpitas  have. 

I  considered  the  highest  use  as  to  portions  of  it,  was  the  vege- 
table use.  Of  course,  there  are  other  portions  in  which,  owing  to 
a  certain  condition  of  the  soil,  the  higher  use  might  be  an  alfalfa 
use.  I  consider  it  accessible  to  the  market,  and  suitable  for  a  high 
grade  good  vegetable. 

I  know  that  that  land  is  adapted  to  an  alfalfa  use,  from  my 
general  knowledge  of  lands,  and  the  alfalfa  that  I  have  seen  raised 
upon  several  pieces ;  practically  all  of  that  land  lying  beyond  County 
Road  2000,  has  been  in  alfalfa  at  one  time  or  another.  The  tract 

706  purchased  from  the  Davis  people,  No.  278  I  believe,  had  seven  crops 
of  alfalfa  taken  off  from  it  the  year  that  the  company  purchased  it 
in  1911  or  1912,  averaging  more  than  a  ton  to  the  acre  for  each 
crop.    That  is  one  of  the  best  tracts  around  there,  and  is  one  of  the 
tracts  rented  by  Heath.    He  was  getting  alfalfa  from  that  land  the 
last  time  I  knew  of  it,  which  was  a  short  time  ago,  and  he  stated 
to  me  that  he  is  getting  very  good  crops.    I  could  not  say  as  to  how 
many  cuttings  he  gets ;  I  know  that  he  must  get  at  least  five,  if  not 
more.    He  has  irrigated  some,  I  believe,  on  a  portion  of  it.    Taking 
the  Heath  land,  the  highest  use  that  I  have  considered  the  land 

707  adapted  to,  is  alfalfa  and  dairying  purposes,  and  also  I  did  not 
overlook  the  fact  that  it  is  suitable  and  adaptable  for  vegetables. 
I  took  all  those  matters  into  consideration,  and  placed  a  value  on 
the  property  at  what  it  would  sell  for.    That  land  is  also  suitable 

206 


Gale 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

for  hay,  but  I  did  not  place  a  valuation  of  $500  on  it  because  it  was 
suitable  for  hay.  The  portion  which  is  suitable  for  hay,  and  is  also 
suitable  for  alfalfa  and  vegetables,  is  certainly  worth  more  than  if  it 
were  only  suitable  for  the  hay.  In  giving  it  a  value  of  $500,  I  con- 
sidered both  factors.  Mr.  Heath  got  at  least  five  cuttings  from  the  708 
Davis  land  last  year.  Most  of  those  lands  surrounding  Pleasanton, 
and  belonging  to  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Co.,  alfalfa  can  be  raised 
upon.  Portions  of  most  all  of  them  have  actually  grown  alfalfa. 

There  is  a  strip  of  alfalfa  in  the  Chabot  field ;  also  there  was  a 
strip  of  alfalfa  on  the  Oxsen  property,  No.  284.  Alfalfa  has  been 
grown  on  271,  and  has  been  grown,  and  is  growing  on  275  at  the 
present  time;  also  on  270;  and  also  on  281,  and  several  other  tracts 
through  there.  In  some  places  they  have  been  growing  alfalfa  for  a  709 
number  of  years.  The  only  place  I  think  of  that  is  possibly  an  ex- 
periment is  the  little  strip  of  alfalfa  in  the  Chabot  field,  and  I  stated 
that  alfalfa  had  been  grown  on  numerous  pieces  in  these  properties 
surrounding  Pleasanton  at  different  times.  I  did  not  purchase  for 
the  company  parcels  S-268,  T-268,  U-268  and  V-268  on  map  10,  and 
I  do  not  know,  of  my  own  knowledge,  when  they  were  purchased, 
nor  the  price  that  was  paid  for  them.  I  have  a  recollection  that 
those  lands  were  purchased  some  time  in  1911,  and  I  understand, 
but  do  not  know  positively,  that  the  purchase  price  was  somewhere 
around  $250  an  acre.  I  do  not  know  exactly  what  it  was.  Those 
were  the  purchases  from  the  Alameda  Sugar  Company. 

Referring  to  my  valuation  on  S-268,  at  $300  an  acre,  on  T  of  71° 
$350  an  acre,  on  U  of  $350  an  acre,  and  on  V  of  $250  an  acre,  I  did 
not  consider  the  purchase  price  of  those  parcels  at  all,  as  I  did  not 
know  what  was  paid  for  them.  I  don't  think  I  knew  the  actual 
price  paid;  as  I  stated  before,  I  understood,  and  have  understood  '*•*• 
that  the  price  was  something  near  $250,  and  I  presume  that  I  under- 
stood that  in  1911.  I  don't  think  that  I  ascertained  that,  or  that 
anybody  told  me,  and  I  did  not  have  any  knowledge  of  what  the 
Alameda  Sugar  Co.  sold  for  until  I  had  completed  the  purchasing  of 
land  around  Pleasanton,  which  lands  I  was  purchasing  in  the  latter 
part  of  1911  for  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Co.  I  was  purchasing 
lands  there  at  the  request  of  James  A.  Clayton  &  Co.  I  did  not  know, 
when  I  first  began  the  purchase  of  these  lands,  that  they  were  for 
the  Spring  Valley  Water  Co.,  and  I  have  no  remembrance  of  them 
notifying  me  what  the  Alameda  Sugar  Co.  got  for  their  properties,  in 
order  to  assist  me  in  my  purchase  of  lands  for  them.  Our  office  pur- 
chased the  Chabot  piece  for  the  company  in  the  latter  part  of  1911,  712 
or  the  early  part  of  1912,  and  as  I  remember  it,  the  price  was  $150 
per  "acre.  The  number  of  that  is  288.  I  think  at  the  time  that  pur- 
chase was  made,  we  figured  the  Chabot  lands  as  1172  acres,  and  my 
remembrance  is  that  a  portion  of  it  was  cash,  and  the  rest  was  by 
mortgage,  and  it  is  my  recollection  that  the  price  paid  for  it  was  $147 

207 


Gale 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

an  acre,  and  a  part  of  that  purchase  price  was  represented  in  a  mort- 
gage. I  believe  that  that  mortgage  ran  three  or  four  years ;  possibly 
only  two  years,  and  possibly  as  much  as  five.  I  do  not  know  whether 
the  Chabot-Bothin  people  were  the  Chabot  people  of  Oakland,  Mr. 
Henry  Bothin  was  the  brother-in-law  of  Chabot,  but  I  guess  that 
was  correct.  (Mr.  Olney:  Mrs.  Bothin,  who  was  a  Chabot,  owned  the 
property.) 

713  The    Head-Hewitt    purchase,    map    10,    No.    291,    was    handled 
through  our  office  in  the  early  part  of  1912.     The  price  paid  for  it 
was  $52,316.75.    I  have  not  figured  it  out  per  acre.    At  the  time  it 
was  purchased  it  was  used  for  general  agricultural  purposes ;  a  por- 
tion of  it  was  used  for  raising  hay  and  grain.     The  lower  portion 
of  it  was  in  beets.    A  portion  of  it  is  used  now  for  hay  and  grain, 
and  I  believe  a  portion — a  small  portion  at  the  lower  end — is  used 
for  beets.     It  has  practically  the  same  use  now  as  at  the  time  of 
purchase.    That  land  has  a  couple  of  bad  spots  of  alkali,  but  not  very 
large. 

714  Referring  to  map  18,  parcel  268-0 ;  on  50  acres  thereof  I  placed 
a  valuation  of  $600  per  acre,  and  on  100  acres  thereof,  a  valuation 
of  $500  per  acre.    The  portion  valued  at  $600  per  acre  lies  in  what 
I  call  the  neck  of  that  piece  of  property,  close  in  to  the  town  of 
Pleasanton,  running  along  between  the  county  road  and  the  Arroyo 
del  Valle,  and  down  toward  Black  Avenue.    I  gave  that  an  additional 
valuation,  because  I  considered  it  a  better  piece  of  land.    The  small 
farmers  living  in  Pleasanton  are  very  anxious  to  get  hold  of  that 
particular  50  acres.    It  is  vegetable  land,  and  would  raise  vegetables, 
but  it  has  never  been  used  for  vegetables. 

Referring  to  map  10,  parcel  268-R;  I  valued  this  higher  than 
$550  an  acre  because  it  lies  adjacent  to  vegetable  gardens  in  Pleas- 
anton, which  is  very  similar  land;  not  quite  as  good  as  the  vegetable 
garden  land  lying  right  next  to  this  property.  The  owners  of 
lands  in  Pleasanton  are,  and  have  been  continually,  exchanging 
their  lands  between  themselves,  and  the  average  price  on  exchange 
is  about  $1000  an  acre.  I  offered  one  man,  for  the  Pacific  Gas  & 

715  Electric,  for  a  little  less  than  an  acre,  right  adjacent  to  this,  $1000 
in  cash.     This  was  not  a  case  of  liberality,  but  it  was  a  case  of 
placing  a  conservative  value  on  the  property.    It  is  not  quite  as  good 
as  the  property  now  in  vegetables.    I  would  not  say  that  it  was  in 
vegetables  now,  or  that  it  never  has  been  in  vegetables.     My  im- 
pression is  that  several  years  ago  that  piece  was  in  asparagus;  it 
might  be  ten  or  fifteen  years  ago. 

268-U ;  there  is  some  low  land  on  this,  but  it  has  been  practically 
well  drained  of  late  years.  The  canals  have  been  fairly  well  cleaned 
out  along  that  particular  piece,  and  the  drainage  is  better  than  it 
was  several  years  ago.  The  marsh  land  is  not  as  extensive  as  it  was 


Gale 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

at  one  time.  I  mean  by  that,  the  size  of  the  marsh  land  is  decreasing, 
though  there  is  some  marsh  land  in  the  property.  Some  12  or  15 
years  ago  it  was  practically  all  marsh  land.  Along  about  1905, 
6  or  7,  they  put  a  system  of  canals  in  there  that  drained  the  prop-  716 
erty  fairly  well.  Since  the  company  purchased  the  property,  it  has 
been  renting  it  to  tenants,  who,  together  with  the  company,  have 
kept  the  ditches  fairly  well  cleaned,  and  the  property  fairly  well 
drained.  During  the  time  the  Alameda  Sugar  Co.  had  it,  they  al- 
lowed it  to  become  rather  wet,  and  did  not  drain  it  properly  for 
awhile. 

Referring  to  map  10,  parcel  282 ;  I  mean  by  the  expression  "It  is 
exceptionally  clean  of  foul  growths"  such  things  as  mustard,  and 
other  detrimental  weeds,  had  been  thoroughly  well  cleaned  off  the 
property,  exceptionally  so,  more  so  than  the  ordinary  farmer  does.  717 
There  is  considerable  foul  growth  in  that  district.  There  is  a  con- 
siderable growth  of  morning  glory  through  a  portion  of  those  lands, 
particularly  south  of  County  Road  2000.  Referring  to  the  second 
parcel  of  282,  containing  19.47  acres,  practically  all  the  alfalfa  that  is 
raised  in  this  district  is  without  irrigation,  and  I  stated  in  regards 
to  the  Heath  people  that  they  irrigated  some,  but  not  to  any  great 
extent.  It  is  the  custom  to  raise  alfalfa  in  this  district  without  irri- 
gation, and  they  usually  get  at  least  five  cuttings.  Mr.  Davis,  one 
year,  got  seven  cuttings. 

71  ft 

I  valued  these  Pleasanton  lands  as  a  whole,  and  when  I  say 
as  a  whole,  I  mean  this :  that  I  valued  the  parcels  of  land,  taking 
into  consideration  the  ownership  of  other  parcels ;  I  did  not  value  it 
as  one  whole  tract,  but  the  sum  total  of  the  values  placed  upon  each 
individual  tract  would  represent  the  value  of  the  entire  property  set 
forth  upon  the  map,  and  I  sought  to  give  them  their  market  value. 

In  placing  my  value  on  these  properties,  I  did  not  take  into 
consideration,  or  think  of  selling  the  properties  from  a  subdivision 
standpoint.  They  could  be  sold  as  a  whole,  and  at  the  value  I  placed 
upon  them,  but  my  impression  and  belief  is  that  they  would  sell 
more  readily  to  several  purchasers,  although  I  did  not  figure  selling 
them  in  any  particular  sized  parcels;  if  a  man  came  in  and  wanted 
50  acres,  you  could  sell  him  50  acres;  if  he  wanted  100  acres,  you 
could  sell  him  100  acres ;  if  he  wanted  2000  acres,  you  could  sell  him 
2000 ;  I  did  not  make  any  subdivisions,  even  in  my  mind,  and  say  that 
I  would  put  three  or  four  plats  together  and  would  sell  those  plats 
at  one  time. 

I  believe  I  am  as  active  in  the  business  as  any  other  real  estate 
man  fn  Pleasanton.  In  fact,  I  don't  believe  there  is  any  other  real 
estate  man  in  the  Pleasanton  district  at  this  time.  I  believe  there  is 
a  young  man  in  the  bank  who  has  had  a  little  to  do  with  real  estate. 
I  have  been  in  the  real  estate  business  since  November,  1905. 

209 


Gale 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.   CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

720  I  made  one  sale,  where  the  purchase  price  would  aggregate  more 
than  $200,000,  which  was  not  cash.    There  was  a  mortgage  given  back 
on  the  property.    It  is  not  my  understanding  that  the  market  value  of 
land  is  always  a  cash  transaction.     Often  times  a  seller  is  glad  to 
allow  a  portion  of  the  purchase  price  to  remain  as  a  mortgage  upon 
the  property.     I  have  never  known  it  to  occur  in  any  of  the  sales 
around  Pleasanton,  that  where  time  is  given,  the  price  is  higher  than 
if  cash  is  paid.    I  will  answer  that  question  in  this  way :  often  times 
the  question  has  been  asked,  "How  much  will  you  deduct  from  the 
purchase  price  for  cash", — and  that  after  an  agreement  was  made 
to  a  certain  portion  being  paid  in  cash,  and  the  balance  on  a  mort- 
gage, the  seller  has  said,  "I  don't  want  the  cash,  I  would  rather  have 
the  mortgage".    I  didn't  say  that  in  my  experience  in  the  Pleasanton 
district  a  seller  would  have  been  willing  to  sell  his  property  entirely 
on  a  mortgage.     A  seller  naturally  asks  to  have  a  reasonable  per- 
centage paid  down,  practically  40,  and  possibly  50  per-cent.    I  have 

721  known  property  to  sell  there  with  only  30  per  cent  paid  down. 

I  am  pretty  sure  I  have  not,  outside  of  those  two  sales  to  the 
Tassajero  Land  Co.,  made  any  other  sales  in  excess  of  $200,000. 
Those  two  sales  were  at  an  acreage  value  of  $60  an  acre,  and  repre- 
sented— I  have  forgotten  just  what  the  division  was — but  both  sales 
did  not  aggregate  7500  acres.  These  two  sales  were  to  the  same 
people  at  the  same  time,  and  under  the  same  conditions.  They  were 

722  not  in  the  Tassajero  Valley,  but  were  sold  in  the  high  lands  which 
divided  what  we  call  the  Tassajero  Valley  from  a  portion  of  the  San 
Ramon  and  Pleasanton  Valleys. 

Map  12,  parcel  239-H;  the  Stone  piece;  I  have  not  my  segrega- 
tion as  to  what  value  I  put  upon  the  farming  portion  of  this  prop- 
erty; the  property  has  been  under  lease  to  Mr.  Apperson  for  some 
years,  and  when  I  talked  to  him  concerning  it,  I  made  my  segrega- 
tion, he  telling  me  how  many  acres  were  farming  land,  and  to- 
gether with  my  own  judgment  of  acreage  and  so  forth,  I  arrived 

723  at  my  figures  as  to  the  farming  and  grazing  land.    I  do  not  remember 
the  acreage  as  to  farming  land,  and  as  to  grazing  land.    Some  of  the 
property  up  on  the  hills  can  be  farmed,  and  has  been  farmed,  so  I 
understand,  but  to  my  own  knowledge,  I  do  not  know  it.    I  see  no 
reason  in  going  over  this  land,  and  from  my  knowledge  of  lands  that 
are  farmed,  why  it  could  not  be  farmed. 

Referring  to  the  Hadsell  piece,  I  graded  this,  and  appraised  the 
walnut  orchard,  100  acres,  at  $500  per  acre ;  250  acres  where  the 
water  temple  is,  at  $400 ;  100  acres  opposite  the  road  leading  from  the 
Mission  bridge  to  Py's  Corner,  at  $250.  This  is  used  for  general 
agricultural  purposes,  hay  and  grain  raising;  a  portion  of  it  can  be 
used  for  vegetables.  It  is  flat  and  pretty  fair  soil.  Practically  all 

724  of  it  can  be  planted  to  vegetables;  I  would  not  say  that  all  of 
it  would  make  excellent  vegetable  land.    I  think  the  hay  and  grain 

210 


SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

purposes  would  probably  be  better  than  the  vegetable  purpose  on 
that  particular  piece,  and  that  is  a  portion  I  valued  at  $250  an 
acre.  I  practically  appraised  that  piece  from  a  hay  and  grain  stand- 
point. The  remaining  acreage;  1650  acres  of  rolling  hills,  is  the 
greater  portion  of  it  farmed,  and  some  of  it  waste  land.  I  did  not 
segregate  these  acres  in  any  way.  Those  rolling  hills  are  suitable 
for  hay  and  grain.  The  waste  land  could  be  used  for  pasturage. 
The  1650  acres  I  valued  as  a  whole  at  $65  an  acre,  and  it  is  now  725 
grown  to  hay  and  grain.  There  are  some  portions  of  it  which  are 
summer-fallowed.  The  number  of  tons  to  the  acre  varies  in  different 
portions.  I  presume  it  would  average  between  a  ton  and  a  ton  and  a 
half  of  hay  and  grain.  This  would  not  necessarily  apply  to  the  part 
that  they  summer-fallow.  I  presume  it  would  produce  from  two  to 
three  tons  in  most  places.  I  did  not  particularly  take  into  considera- 
tion the  portion  that  was  summer-fallowed  and  the  portion  that  was 
not.  I  took  into  consideration  the  general  character  of  the  land,  and 
what  I  considered  it  would  sell  for  for  hay  and  grain  purposes.  I 
have  not  been  connected  with  the  hay  and  grain  business  in  any  way, 
and  am  not  an  expert  upon  the  prices  of  hay  and  grain.  My  knowl-  726 
edge  is  not  very  extensive  in  hay  and  grain  matters,  but  I  believe  some 
of  the  best  hay  sold  last  year  at  $11  a  ton.  I  have  not  any  remem- 
brance of  what  hay  was  worth  at  the  time  I  valued  this  land,  Decem- 
ber 31,  1913;  if  it  had  been  worth  $20  a  ton  at  that  time,  and  I  was 
only  going  to  take  that  year  into  consideration,  I  would  have  put  a 
greater  value  upon  the  land. 

Map  15,  parcel  239-M;  the  Alameda  Creek  and  San  Antonio 
Creek  flow  through  the  property.  The  east  side  of  the  land  lies 
along  Apperson  Creek.  I  believe  there  are  about  200  acres  of  level 
land  lying  upon  the  Alameda  Creek,  and  there  is  some  portion  lying 
up  on  San  Antonio  Creek  that  is  good  farming  land.  About  150  to 
200  acres  lying  upon  a  bench  that  leads  off  the  San  Antonio,  has 
rather  an  adobe  soil,  and  is  very  good  hay  land.  There  are 
about  150  acres  lying  up  through  the  Apperson  Creek,  a  por- 
tion of  which  is  fair  farming  land.  There  are  about  600  acres 
of  fairly  good  pasture  land.  There  is  some  creek  bottom.  There 
are  some  steep  hills;  some  wooded  places,  and  some  farming  lands  727 
through  the  tops  of  the  hills.  I  give  1164  acres  as  steep  land 
to  the  tops  of  the  hills,  and  valued  that  at  $12.50  per  acre.  Some  of 
this,  however,  is  fairly  good  grazing  land.  There  is  650  acres  of  fairly 
good  pasture  land,  which  I  valued  at  $25  per  acre.  The  steep  land, 
valued  at  $12.50  an  acre,  has  considerable  good  pasture  land  through 
it,  grazing  land.  As  to  the  remainder ;  about  400  acres  of  creek  bot- 
tom,'lying  in  both  the  San  Antonio  and  the  Alameda,  which  I  value 
at  $75  per  acre,  because  of  the  gravel  that  lies  through  it,  and  some 
little  islands  and  spots  that  are  fairly  good  for  truck  gardening, 
farming,  and  a  little  plat  of  hay.  That  does  not  include  all  of  the 

211 


Gale 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

land  there,  the  rest  of  it,  150  acres,  I  valued  at  $30  per  acre,  and  is 
suited  for  farming  land,  lying  in  the  back  portion  of  this  property ; 
there  are  the  tops  of  hills  that  can  be  farmed.  I  have  had  no  experi- 

728  ence  as  a  stock  man. 

Map  12,  parcel  244.  This  is  good  for  hay  and  grain,  and  has 
been  planted  to  that.  I  do  not  know  how  many  tons  they  got  to  the 
acre  in  any  particular  year.  It  lies  just  south  of  the  Alameda  Creek 
along  the  county  road  from  Sunol  to  Mission  San  Jose ;  75  acres  of  it 
is  of  rather  a  dark  soil,  some  little  sand  in  it ;  the  balance  is  rolling. 
The  75  acres  is  fairly  level.  I  am  sure  that  in  the  back  end  of  this 
piece  of  property,  and  lying  along  the  creek  bottom  there,  it  is  a  little 
bit  rough,  but  very  little  of  it  is  of  that  nature.  That  land  does  not 
run  back  into  the  hills  to  any  great  distance. 

Map  12,  parcel  262;  I  believe  I  testified  as  to  that  that  the 
property  could  be  used  for  vegetables  and  fruit,  but  that  the  charac- 
ter of  the  soil  is  such  that  it  is  not  exceptionally  well  adapted  for 

729  such  purposes.    That  statement  was  made  for  the  purpose  of  showing 
that  the  soil  in  that  particular  portion  was  not  as  good  as  some  soil 
lying  in  the  flat  immediately  near  it,  as  there  is  some  gravel  running 
through  it  and  some  reddish  soil.    I  only  meant  that  comparatively. 

Referring  to  parcel  262;  I  know  what  the  nature  of  the  soil  is 
in  that  parcel,  but  it  is  not  exactly  the  same  character  of  soil  as  the 
land  immediately  surrounding  it.  It  is  a  good  deal  similar  to  the  soil 
that  lies  upon  the  hillside  there,  and  yet  has  some  soil  in  it  similar 
to  that  lying  in  the  flat.  That  is  not  the  piece  I  testified  to,  as  having 
the  creek  and  the  railroads  run  through.  The  creek  runs  along  one 
end  of  it,  and  the  railroad  is  around  it,  and  it  is  between  all  three 
of  them.  The  creek  may  cut  one  corner  of  it. 

THIRTEENTH  HEARING.  JULY  30,  1915. 

Witnesses  C.  A.  GALE  and  C.  H.  SCHWEEN. 

730  (Certain  corrections  in  transcript  noted.) 

Referring  to  Holberton  contract,  counsel  for  Defendant  stated 
that  it  checked  out  at  $109  an  acre  on  time.  Holberton  to  pay  the 
principal  of  $85,000  any  time  before  1920,  but  does  not  pay  any  in- 
terest until  February  1, 1917,  at  which  time  he  pays  the  back  interest. 

731  CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  STEINHART 

A  reasonable  time  for  disposing  of  all  these  lands  at  the  figure 
I  have  placed  upon  them,  as  of  the  year  1913,  would  have  been  at 
that  time  a  year.  Exclusive  of  the  sales  to  the  Spring  Valley  Water 
Co.,  the  total  value  of  sales  that  I  have  made,  taking  them  as 

732  a  whole,  would  aggregate  about  $1,000,000,  and  would  cover  a  period 
of  about  ten  years'  experience  in  the  real  estate  business. 

I  am  33  years  old. 

212 


Gale 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

Map  10,  101.05  acres  of  parcel  283 ;  I  valued  this  acreage  at  $425 
an  acre,  and  that  in  parcel  281  at  $500  an  acre.  281  is  known  as  the 
Blacow  property,  and  lies  on  the  county  road  from  Pleasanton  to 
Santa  Rita,  a  very  good  piece  of  land.  At  one  time  I  made  an  offer 
to  Mr.  Blacow  and  Mr.  German  of  some  $22,000  for  that  property, 
and  it  was  refused.  The  property  was  in  alfalfa  in  December  31, 
1913,  and  the  soil  is  a  little  different  than  the  No.  283  piece,  contain- 
ing 101.05  acres.  That  portion  lies  to  the  north  of  the  county  road, 
leading  from  Pleasanton  to  Livermore.  The  S.  P.  R.  R.  tracks,  and 
the  Western  Pac.  Ry.  tracks  lie  between  this  piece  of  property  and 
the  county  road.  The  east  end  of  it  contains  some  gravel.  It  is  not 
quite  as  good  a  piece  of  property  as  No.  281,  according  to  my  judg-  733 
ment.  I  think  that  this  states  as  concisely  as  I  can  the  factors  of 
difference  between  those  parcels.  All  those  elements  enter  into  the 
different  valuations.  There  is  some  material  difference  in  the  soil 
conditions  between  281  and  283  other  than  the  mere  gravelly  condi- 
tions. The  soil  in  283  is  rather  reddish  in  color  in  portions;  some 
is  sandy ;  also  this  piece  is  more  of  a  hay  and  grain  land.  In  281  it  is 
a  dark  sediment  fill  mostly.  There  is  a  knoll  running  through  it, 
which  is  hardly  a  fill,  but  it  is  a  dark  loam.  It  has  been  used  for 
alfalfa  and  dairying  purposes. 

There  is  not  a  great  deal  of  difference  between  these  parcels 
and  the  lands  immediately  below  County  Road  2000.  239-d,  239-e, 
and  239-1.  There  is  somewhat  of  a  difference  in  the  soil.  The  prop- 
erties in  that  cluster,  I  believe,  are  appraised  at  $500  an  acre;  the 
properties  here  I  am  appraising  at  $50  an  acre.  I  know  that  is  what 
the  Spring  Valley  Water  Co.  paid  to  Mr.  Schween  for  those  properties, 
and  within  a  year's  time  after  that  sale,  Mr.  C.  H.  and  Will  Schween 
both  called  at  my  office,  and  told  me  personally  that  if  I  could  get  734 
the  lands  back  for  them,  they  would  be  willing  to  pay  a  bonus  of 
$10,000  over  what  was  paid  to  them.  I  do  not  consider  that  fact 
of  any  particular  importance  as  bearing  upon  price.  I  appraised 
that  property  absolutely  from  the  standpoint  of  what  I  thought  was 
a  fair  valuation,  and  the  price  paid  to  the  Schweens  played  no  part  in 
my  mind. 

I  believe  Mr.  Schween  is  now  in  the  employ  of  the  Spring  Valley 
Water  Co.  This  offer  that  Mr.  Schween  made  was  prior  to  the  time 
that  he  was  in  the  employ  of  the  company,  and  was  also  prior  to  the 
time  that  he  was  even  contemplating  getting  into  the  employ  of  the 
company ;  it  was  a  bona  fide  offer. 

Map  12,  parcel  268-A;  my  remembrance  is  that  I  did  not  make 
any  difference  in  the  value  between  the  agricultural  and  the  vineyard 
land  in  this  piece.  The  vineyard  was  not,  on  December  31,  1913,  in 
very  good  condition.  It  had  been  allowed  to  go  to  waste ;  I  did  not 
consider  the  vines  of  any  particular  increased  valuation,  excepting 
that  I  appraised  the  whole,  taking  the  fact  into  consideration  that 

213 


Gale 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

735  there  was  a  vineyard  upon  the  property.    The  agricultural  uses  were 
hay  and  grain  raising.    There  is  some  waste  acreage  on  that  land, 
but  it  would  hardly  be  called  waste  acreage  in  that  locality.    It  can 
be  used  for  grazing  purposes.    One  steep  gulch  in  the  back  of  that 
land  is  wooded;  I  took  that  into  consideration  in  placing  my  value, 
also.    I  cannot  say  that  I  made  any  particular  deductions  from  my 
general  valuation  because  of  that  tract.     I  took  into  consideration 
that  if  the  best  portion  of  this  land  was  in  one  parcel  by  itself,  that 
I  probably  would  have  appraised  it  by  itself  at  a  greater  valuation, 
because  it  would  have  sold  at  a  greater  figure.    I  graded  this  pas- 
ture land  at  the  time  I  made  the  valuation,  but  I  have  not  that  here, 
and  do  not  know  how  much  acreage  I  allowed  for  the  waste,  and 
how  much  for  the  pasturage.     The  waste  or  pasturage  land  is  not 
any  great  amount  of  the  property. 

Questioned  by  Mr.  Greene. 

My  valuation  on  that  was  $125  an  acre. 

Questioned  by  Mr.  McCutchen. 

That  was  the  Roumiguiere  property. 

736  CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  STEINHART 

Map  13,  parcel  239-P ;  I  figured  that  about  60  acres  of  that  land 
could  be  put  to  grazing,  and  valued  it  at  $15  per  acre.  The  land 
could  also  be  used  for  general  farming  purposes.  I  valued  200  acres 
at  $50 ;  200  acres  at  $40 ;  a  portion  of  it  is  level,  and  a  portion  of  it 
is  rolling.  The  south  end  is  quite  steep. 

Referring  to  page  645  of  the  transcript,  the  following  statement 
was  made  by  witness  in  reference  to  239-P: 

''This  property  also  lies  on  both  sides  of  the  San  Antonio. 
"About  half  of  it  is  good  farming  land  and  good  grazing.  The  bal- 
"ance  is  steep  in  portions,  and  some  portions  wooded,  particularly 
"on  the  south  side.  The  farming  land  is  of  fair  soil.  On  the  north 
"side  there  are  about  200  acres  of  good  farming  land,  that  is,  good 
"for  that  kind  of  lands,  and  lands  that  are  located  in  that  district." 

737  I  meant  by  that  statement,  that  the  lands  located  in  that  district 
are  entirely  different  from  other  lands  which  I  testified  to.    That  is 
a  different  and  a  poorer  kind  of  land.    You  could  not  compare  the 
lands  in  that  particular  portion  with  the  Schween  lands. 

Map  13,  239-Y;  this  land  can  be  devoted  to  grazing  purposes, 
and  that  is  what  I  appraised  it  at.  A  portion  of  it  could  be  farmed. 
I  did  not  go  into  the  question  of  how  much  of  it,  but  it  would  sell  as 
readily  for  grazing  purposes  as  it  would  for  farming  purposes  in 
that  particular  portion. 

I  do  not  know  what  the  rental  is  as  paid  for  this  land,  nor  for 
grazing  lands  in  Calaveras,  nor  do  I  know  the  rentals  paid  for  land 
in  the  San  Antonio.  These  lands  on  map  14  were  used  prior  to  the 

738  time  of  purchase  by  the  Spring  Valley,  for  grazing  purposes,  and 
some  portions  of  them  were  farmed.    Some  of  the  neighboring  lands 

214 


Gale 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

are  now  used  for  grazing  purposes ;  some  of  them  are  farmed ;  some 
of  them  are  very  steep  and  rough.  I  did  not  particularly  go  into  the 
section  of  the  country  lying  east  of  these  lands,  because  that  is  an 
entirely  different  country,  and  an  entirely  different  character  of 
lands,  excepting  that  they  are  all  grazing  lands,  and  used  for  the 
same  purpose.  At  the  time  the  Spring  Valley  purchased  these  prop- 
erties, they  were,  in  many  instances,  being  used  by  the  owners,  and  in 
many  instances,  were  being  rented.  I  do  not  even  know  when  the 
Spring  Valley  purchased  these  lands. 

Map  15,  268-C ;  I  graded  that  land  in  four  different  portions.  One 
30  acres;  one  200  acres;  one  200  acres;  one  60  acres.  I  placed  my 
values  on  those  pieces  upon  uses  for  general  agricultural  and  grazing 
purposes.  For  the  different  purposes,  I  placed  the  different  valua- 
tions upon  the  different  parcels  as  follows :  30  acres  for  general  agri- 
cultural purposes  at  $200  an  acre.  For  property  immediately  sur-  739 
rounding  it  they  are  asking  $300  an  acre ;  200  acres  rolling  farming 
land  that  lies  practically  adjacent  to  the  level  land  in  the  flat  at 
$100  an  acre;  200  acres  used  for  grazing  purposes — portions  of  it 
could  be  farmed,  at  $50  an  acre.  I  placed  that  more  from  a  grazing 
standpoint.  100  acres  of  it  could  be  farmed  if  they  endeavored  to 
do  so.  That  is  on  the  hillside,  but  is  not  the  steepest  portion  of 
the  place.  I  figured  that  about  100  acres  of  it  could  be  farmed, 
and  100  acres  of  it  would  be  for  grazing,  and  in  making  my  valua- 
tion, I  took  the  two  facts  into  consideration,  and  placed  my  value  that 
way.  As  to  the  balance,  50  acres,  1  placed  a  valuation  of  $20  an  740 
acre  on  it.  It  contains  considerable  brush;  some  chaparral  on  it, 
and  is  pretty  steep.  It  could  be  used  for  grazing,  and  some  portions 
of  it  is  used  for  grazing  purposes. 

Map  16,  241-A;  is  not  an  extremely  steep  tract.  A  portion  of 
it,  running  into  La  Honda,  is  steep.  Some  of  the  hills  run  up  to  a 
point.  There  are  some  ravines  in  it,  but  I  could  not  say  offhand  just 
how  many.  I  went  over  the  tract,  was  on  it,  and  studied  it  from 
every  angle,  and  placed  my  value  in  that  way,  taking  all  those  things 
into  consideration. 

Map  16,  241-E;  section  23.  It  is  suited  for  grazing  lands,  and 
has  practically  no  other  uses.  In  all  these  lands,  where  I  testified  to 
a  grazing  use,  and  you  ask  me  if  they  have  any  other  use,  I  will  say, 
any  lands  could  be  put  to  other  uses  if  people  purchasing  them  desire 
to  do  so,  but  I  have  taken  into  consideration  no  other  uses.  Around 
the  Mt.  Diablo  region  I  have  seen  some  very  rough  lands  that  were  741 
tilled.  This  piece  was  not  ever  tilled,  to  my  knowledge.  241-A  is 
a  little  bit  further  removed  from  the  floor  of  the  valley,  and  is  upon 
a  higher  elevation  than  241-E,  which  practically  adjoins  farming 
lands,  and  could  be  used  in  connection  with  such  lands  lying  in  the 
floor  of  the  valley,  while  241-A  is  removed  from  the  farming  land. 
My  experience  is  that  grazing  lands  which  -could  be  used  in  connec- 

215 


Gale 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

tion  with  farming  lands,  and  lying  immediately  adjacent  thereto, 
are  worth  a  little  more  than  simply  grazing  lands  which  did  not  lie 
close  to  farming  lands. 

Map  16,  parcel  320,  containing  120  acres,  I  graded  in  this  man- 
ner :  about  50  acres  level  farming  land  at  $100  per  acre,  and  20  acres 
lying  in  the  creek  at  $50  per  acre.  The  purposes  for  which  I  figured 
that  property  are  that  portions  can  be  farmed,  and  it  also  can  be 
used  for  pasturage  purposes  in  conjunction  with  the  same  uses  that 
those  properties  are  generally  put  to  in  connection  with  farming 
property.  The  balance,  50  acres,  is  heavily  wooded,  and  very  poor. 
I  valued  it  at  $20  per  acre.  The  factors  necessary  to  make  pasturage 

742  or  grazing  land,  are  the  feed  upon  it.     All  lands  can  be  used  for 
grazing.     Some  is  poor  grazing  land,  but  even  if  heavily  brushed, 
it  can  be  used.    The  feed  upon  the  land  is  one  of  the  principal  ele- 
ments; the  element  of  water  for  your  stock  is  another  one.    All  of 
those  things  enter  into  the  value  of  grazing  lands.    The  factors  or 
elements  entering  into  general  agricultural  lands,  are  what  the  land 
will  raise.    The  elements  necessary  to  permit  land  raising  hay  and 
grain,  are  soil  conditions;  that  the  property  is  so  situate  that  it  is 
possible  to  go  upon  it  and  plant  and  harvest  your  crop.    I  consider 
the  best  alfalfa  land  those  which  have  rather  a  sandy  loam  or  fill  at 
the  top,  and  as  you  go  deeper  into  the  soil,  you  find  it  a  little  heavier, 
and  land  that  carries  a  sufficient  amount  of  moisture.    It  needs  more 

743  moisture  than  general  farming  land. 

Map  17,  268-G ;  this  is  rough ;  has  some  sagebrush  on  it ;  wooded ; 
is  neither  good  grazing  land,  nor  is  it  awfully  poor.  268-E,  in 
yellow,  adjoining  268-G,  is  a  much  more  open  country;  speaking  of 
the  140  acres,  instead  of  being  rough  and  having  wood  practically 
all  over  it,  there  are  some  open  spots,  and  it  is  not  a  bad  grazing 
portion.  There  are  20.20  acres  cut  out  by  parcel  268-F. 

Map  18,  268-c;  I  am  not  familiar  with  the  purchase  price  paid 
for  this  parcel  by  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Co.,  nor  for  any  of  these 
properties  I  testified  to  in  Calaveras.  The  same  answer  applies  to 
268-e.  The  only  lands  I  am  really  familiar  with,  as  to  the  price  paid, 
are  the  lands  around  Pleasanton. 

744  (An  understanding  was  reached  here,  between  counsel,  that  the 
purchase  price  of  these  different  lands  will  be  put  in  evidence,  both 
on  a  table,  and  also  on  a  map.) 

Map  18,  268-1 ;  about  60  acres  farming  land  near  the  flat  at  $100  ; 
about  60  acres  farming  land  at  $50 ;  about  100  acres  of  grazing  land, 
rough,  and  has  some  steep  gulches  in  it,  and  some  wood,  at  $20;  100 

745  acres  at  $40,  open  grazing,  with  some  wood  on  it.     The  60  acres  are 
located  down  near  the  flat.    I  presume  it  would  take  in  a  part  of  No. 
3  on  the  map.    The  60  acres  of  farming  land  at  $50  an  acre  lies  on  the 
north  side  of  Calaveras  Creek,  back  of  the  slope  of  the  hill.  Referring 
to  lot  2 ;  there  is  a  strip  in  there  that  is  rather  steep  and  wooded,  not 

216 


Gale 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

rery  long,  and  practically  divides  the  lower  from  the  upper  lands. 
It  is  the  incline  of  the  hill  where  the  land  jumps  on  to  the  ridge.  The 
100  acres  at  $20  represents  the  wooded  portion;  a  part  of  it  is  along 
the  Calaveras,  and  a  part  along  the  other  tributary  to  the  creek  that 
runs  through  that  parcel.  The  100  acres  do  not  all  lie  in  one  portion ; 
I  included  the  wood.  I  did  not  pay  a  great  deal  of  attention  to  the 
exact  location  of  any  portion  of  it,  but  simply  went  over  the  lands,  and 
tried  to  segregate  one  from  the  other.  The  100  acres  at  $40  is  good  746 
grazing  land  between  the  two  tributaries  to  the  creek.  There  is  a 
small  portion  of  grazing  land  in  other  portions. 

268-m,  in  section  5;  I  graded  that  parcel  60  acres  at  $40,  and  120 
acres  at  $20.  The  $40  piece  I  valued  for  farming  purposes — it  is  farm- 
ing land,  agricultural  land — and  the  remainder  I  valued  for  grazing 
purposes.  There  is  a  portion  of  the  remainder  that  is  wooded  and 
rough.  When  I  say  "60  acres"  in  these  segregations  I  have  made, 
there  might  be  65  acres  of  farming  land  in  that  portion.  I  simply 
made  a  rough  guess  at  the  acreage  which  was  farming  land,  basing  it 
upon  my  knowledge  of  lands.  I  do  not  remember  that  the  bulk  of  this 
tract  was  very  rough,  brushy,  and  full  of  sage-brush.  In  making  my 
memorandum  upon  the  condition  and  character  of  the  land,  I  simply 
took  rough  notes  on  the  ground,  and  then  recopied  them,  and  dictated 
them  to  my  stenographer  in  my  office,  and  had  her  write  them  up,  and 
then  I  went  back  over  the  properties,  wherever  I  found  something  that 
I  thought  was  either  of  benefit  or  a  detriment  to  the  property  that  I  747 
did  not  have  in  my  notes,  and  I  then  endeavored  to  place  it  in  my 
notes. 

268-e,  map  18,  the  Beverson  place  (called  by  counsel  for  Defend- 
ant the  Dennis  Cullen  place)  ;  lies  on  the  north-east  slope  of  the  Ca- 
laveras Valley.  Mostly  open  rolling  land ;  rather  a  dark  soil ;  has  two 
or  three  springs  on  it,  and  some  twenty  acres  that  are  rather  wooded 
and  steep.  Has  running  through  it  one  or  two  gulches,  I  don't  re- 
member just  how  many. 

Referring  to  the  factors  of  difference  in  values  between  parcels 
270  and  281 ;  parcel  270  has  some  low  lands  in  it ;  is  also  cut  by  the 
railroad  track,  whereas,  281  is  not.  In  the  lower  end  of  270  is  some 
tules.  It  is  rather  marshy,  and  there  are  about  20  acres  in  that  piece 
which,  owing  to  the  marshy  character  of  it,  is  practically  of  no  use  at 
the  present  time.  If  some  one  would  take  the  time,  it  would  not  be  748 
a  great  deal  of  work  to  drain  that  portion  of  it.  Some  years  ago  I 
undertook  to  do  it,  and  was  succeeding  fairly  well,  when  we  rented 
it  out  to  some  parties  under  a  lease,  and  it  was  allowed  to  go  back  into 
a  marshy  shape  again.  Joe  Bentonunes,  a  tenant,  offered  $250  an 
acre  "for  the  entire  property.  Another  young  fellow  offered  for  a  por- 
tion of  it,  $300  an  acre.  "We  refused  both  offers. 

I  would  say  that  there  has  been  practically  no  material  change  in 
the  values  of  any  of  these  lands  that  I  have  testified  to,  outside  of  the 

217 


Gale 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

lands  immediately  surrounding  Pleasanton,  since  1907;  as  to  those 
lands,  I  would  say  that  I  do  not  consider  there  has  been  any  particular 
or  material  difference  in  valuation  since  1910,  although  I  have  not 
given  that  phase  of  the  question  any  particular  study. 

RE-DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.   GREENE. 

The  Beverson  piece,  268-e,  on  map  18,  lies  on  the  west  side  of  the 
Calaveras  Valley,  and  slopes  practically  northeast  into  the  valley,  and 

749  is  at  the  southwest  end  of  the  valley. 

I  consider  the  purchase  price  paid  for  the  Chabot  piece  in  Pleas- 
anton was  less  than  the  value.  It  was  a  matter  that  was  spoken  of 
quite  a  good  deal  around  Pleasanton  at  the  time  of  the  purchase.  If 
the  Spring  Valley  "Water  Co.  had  not  taken  it,  my  partner  and  I 
would  have  been  glad  to  have  taken  it  at  that  price,  because  it  was  a 
good  investment,  and  there  was  considerable  money  to  be  made  out 
of  it 

750  The  vegetables  that  are  grown  at  Pleasanton  are  all  shipped,  more 
or  less,  into  Oakland  and  San  Francisco;  they  also  have  a  market  for 
them  amongst  the  residents  of  the  town  of  Pleasanton,  and  the  vicinity 
surrounding  Pleasanton;   I  believe  they  have  practically  the  only 
vegetable  wagons  running  into  Livermore.     The  vegetable  business 
seems  to  be  a  profitable  business  for  those  who  are  engaged  in  it 
around  Pleasanton,  as  the  people  always  apparently  have  money,  and 
considerable  of  it.    When  they  buy  a  small  home  around  Pleasanton, 
it  does  not  take  them  very  long  to  pay  off  any  indebtedness  they  have 
on  it. 

In  regard  to  irrigation  (Heath  place),  I  thought  that  it  was  for 
the  purpose  of  giving  moisture  to  the  alfalfa,  but  it  was  done  entirely 
for  the  purpose  of  drowning  out  the  gophers  and  field  mice  that  were 
in  the  property.  As  to  those  vegetable  lands,  I  have  been  informed 
that  several  vegetable  men  in  San  Francisco  have  been  very  anxious 
to  get  hold  of  some  of  the  land  of  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Co.  at 
Pleasanton  for  the  purpose  of  raising  vegetables,  and  have  offered  as 
__  high  as  $40  per  acre  rental  per  year,  providing  they  could  get  a  lease 
of  from  ten  to  fifteen  years. 

Questioned  by  Master. 

I  did  not  take  into  consideration  the  prices  at  which  the  Spring 
Valley  Water  Co.  rented  these  lands  to  tenants,  in  my  valuation,  be- 
cause of  their  refusing  to  issue  a  lease  for  any  great  length  of  time, 
and  also  they  will  not  erect  upon  the  property  buildings  for  the 
accommodation  of  their  tenants,  and  for  that  reason  they  are  not 
getting  a  rental  which  they  would  be  getting  otherwise.  I  did  not 
take  into  consideration  the  price  paid  by  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Co. 
for  the  lands  purchased  by  them,  because  the  Spring  Valley  Water 
Co.  wanted  these  lands  for  a  certain  purpose,  and  if  the  man  who  was 
selling  did  not  want  to  sell,  he  would  demand  a  greater  price  than  the 
actual  value,  and  the  Spring  Valley  would  pay  it  because  they  wanted 

218 


Gale 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

those  lands  for  some  purpose  possibly  worth  more  to  them  than  what 
they  purchased  them  for.  The  people  who  owned  lands  in  the  vicinity 
of  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Co.  know  as  a  matter  of  general  knowl- 
edge that  they  could  obtain  more  money  for  them  from  a  company  like 
the  Spring  Valley  Water  Co.  than  they  could  for  general  farming 
or  agricultural  purposes.  I  will  not  say  that  the  purchase  prices  were 
generally  higher  than  the  valuations  which  I  have  placed  upon  these 
lands.  The  Hewlett  place  I  believe  they  received  $300  an  acre  for.  752 
We  paid  Blacow  for  the  entire  50  acres  $25,000,  just  what  it  was 
appraised  for,  and  in  addition,  granted  him  a  lease  for  a  year  or  two 
years,  the  consideration  for  the  first  year  being  $1,  and  for  the  next 
year  a  very  nominal  consideration.  The  Schween  property  I  think  I 
appraised  for  a  little  more,  as  a  whole,  than  what  the  Spring  Valley 
Water  Co.  paid  for  it.  The  Freitas  property  will  average  just  about 
what  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Co.  paid  for  it.  The  number  of  this 
property  is  map  10,  282-A. 

CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.   STEINHART. 

The  Kruse  property,  I  think  they  paid  a  little  more  money 
for  than  what  I  appraised  it  for.  In  some  of  these  places,  where 
there  were  good  buildings  upon  the  properties,  I  took  into  consid- 
eration no  improvements  in  appraising  the  land.  The  Kruse  prop- 
erty has  improvements  on  it  that  are  probably  worth,  off-hand,  some- 
where around  from  $7,000  to  $10,000.  The  Davis  property,  I  don't 
remember  just  what  the  purchase  price  was.  For  the  Caton  Lewis  753 
property,  the  company  paid  $501  an  acre,  and  I  appraised  that  at 
$500  an  acre.  The  Peach  property  they  paid  $500  an  acre  for.  On 
that  piece  there  were  some  improvements.  There  is  also  a  life  estate 
mixed  up  in  the  property,  and  we  had  to  buy  off  the  parties  to  whom 
the  property  went  upon  the  death  of  the  then  holder,  as  well  as  the 
then  holder  of  the  property.  The  Lilienthal  property,  I  understand 
the  purchase  price  was  something  between  $500  and  $600,  but  I  will 
say  this  in  regard  to  the  purchase  price  of  all  these  properties,  that  I 
have  a  record  of  them  in  my  office  at  home,  and  I  could  get  the  pur- 
chase price  of  each  very  quickly. 

RE-DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  GREENE. 

I  would  not  consider  the  rentals  which  are  being  paid  now,  and 
that  have  been  paid  for  the  last  year,  a  fair  test  of  the  value  of  the 
property. 

In  regard  to  my  knowledge  of  the  purchase  from  the  Alameda 
Sugar  Company,  at  the  time  I  was  effecting  purchases  for  the  water 
company,  the  situation  was,  so  far  as  I  can  recall  it,  this :  I  acquired 
that"  knowledge  during  the  time  I  was  making  the  purchases,  and  the 
knowledge  was  acquired  by  me,  from  Mr.  Donohue,  and  was  not  ac- 
quired by  him  from  the  company.  He  informed  me  that  the  Alameda 
Sugar  Company  had  sold  their  property  to  the  Spring  Valley  Water 

219 


Gale 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

Co.  for  something  over  $250  an  acre.  My  impression  is  that  he  did 
give  me  the  exact  figure,  or  rather,  an  exact  figure.  What  that  figure 
was  I  do  not  remember.  It  has  always  been  my  impression  that  the 
purchase  price  was  something  between  $250  and  $260  an  acre.  I  think 
it  was  stated  yesterday  that  the  purchase  price  was  $263  an  acre. 

All  of  those  lands  of  the  company,  taken  as  a  whole,  are  practically 
as  good  for  the  raising  of  sugar  beets  as  for  the  raising  of  alfalfa. 
There  is  now  alfalfa  standing  in  about  400  acres,  or  possibly  300,  situ- 
ated along  and  below  County  Road  2000;  there  is  also  some  alfalfa 

755  standing  on  the  upper  side  of  the  road  in  239-L.    In  268-O,  Heath  has 
a  very  fine  stand  of  alfalfa  at  the  present  time.    I  could  not  say  as 
to  how  many  acres  he  has.     The  old  Davis  property  has  quite  an 
alfalfa  stand  on  it.    Practically  all  of  that  is  in  alfalfa.     Parcel  275 
is  in  alfalfa  at  the  present  time,  and  parcel  281  has  some  alfalfa  upon 
it  at  the  present  time.    A  great  many  of  the  other  tracts  around  Pleas- 
anton  have  been  in  alfalfa.    The  lands  on  which  alfalfa  is  not  grown 
now  are  probably  lands  of  the  company  upon  which  they  refuse  to  give 
a  lease  of  more  than  one  year.    Also  several  of  those  lands  are  equally 
as  good  for  beets  as  for  alfalfa,  and  parties  renting  them  would  rather 
farm  them  to  beets  than  alfalfa.     Some  of  those  lands,  suitable  for 

756  alfalfa  purposes,  the  parties  farming  them  would  rather  farm  to  hay 
and  grain. 

The  weed  morning  glory  has  practically  no  ill  effects  on  the  al- 
falfa crop,  because  the  alfalfa  chokes  it,  and  does  not  allow  it  to  grow. 
As  to  vegetables,  vegetable  lands  continually  working,  the  morning 
glory  is  kept  back.  Around  Alvarado,  they  are  using  lands  for  vege- 
table purposes,  and  don't  think  anything  of  the  morning  glories. 
Morning  glory  on  good  land  is  usually  the  rule,  and  not  the  exception. 
When  it  once  gets  started  on  good  land,  it  likes  to  stay  there,  and 
usually  on  good  lands  all  over  the  county  you  will  find  morning  glories, 
and  there  is  a  good  deal  of  it  in  Santa  Clara  Valley  also. 

By  the  term  "level  lands  from  Sunol  to  Niles",  I  did  not  mean 
level  lands  in  the  sense  of  the  word  that  the  lands  on  map  10,  and  sur- 
rounding Pleasanton  are  level  lands,  but  I  mean  that  through  the 

757  Niles  Canyon  there  are  portions  sufficiently  level  to  enable  a  man  to 
work  them,  or  build  a  house,  or  other  improvements  on  them.    They 
have  more  or  less  slope — more  of  a  bench  than  level  land. 

Map  12,  parcel  244  is  the  Behan  piece,  I  believe.  That  has  been 
farmed  for  hay  and  grain  purposes.  A  portion  of  it  was  summer- 
fallowed  last  year,  and  a  portion  of  it  this  year.  They  summer-fallow 
a  portion  of  it  one  year,  and  another  portion  of  it  the  next  year. 

758  The  purchase  price  of  the  properties  immediately  surrounding 
Pleasanton,  and  which  I  purchased  for  the  company,  had  some  weight 
in  my  appraisal  of  the  properties  of  the  company.    I  gave  these  pur- 
chase prices  some  consideration,  but  not  to  the  extent  that  I  would 
have  given  the  sales,  had  those  sales  been  made  from  one  individual 

220 


Gale 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

to  another  as  to  each  parcel,  and  providing  that  no  one  individual  was 
buying  any  great  amount  of  those  lands.  In  placing  my  valuation 
upon  the  properties,  I  endeavored  to  give  a  valuation  which  would  be 
a  conservative  selling  price  from  one  individual  to  another,  and  not  a 
valuation  which  would  be  the  selling  price  from  one  individual  to  one 
corporation,  particularly  a  public  utility  corporation. 

239-M  is  not  the  Hadsell  property.  It  is  the  De  Saissett  prop- 
erty. I  made  ten  segregations  of  this  property.  300  acres  of  farming  759 
land  along  the  Alameda  Creek  I  appraised  at  $200  an  acre ;  200  acres 
of  farming  land  along  the  San  Antonio  Creek  I  appraised  at  $65  an 
acre ;  50  acres  along  the  San  Antonio  Creek  appraised  at  $75  an  acre ; 
100  acres  of  farming  land  near  the  mouth  of  the  creek  appraised  at 
$100  an  acre ;  150  acres  of  farming  land  on  top  of  the  hill  appraised 
at  $70  an  acre;  150  acres  near  Apperson  Creek  appraised  at  $40  an 
acre ;  150  acres  of  farming  land  on  the  tops  of  the  hills  appraised  at 
$30  an  acre ;  400  acres  of  creek  bottom,  including  the  San  Antonio  and 
Alameda  Creek  bottoms  appraised  at  $75  an  acre  •  650  acres  of  pasture 
land  used  by  Mr.  Lial,  and  lying  principally  in  the  eastern  portion  of 
the  land,  and  appraised  at  $25  an  acre,  and  1164  acres  of  other  grazing 
lands  which  I  appraised  at  $12.50  an  acre. 

RE-CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.   STEINHART 

Mr.  Steinhart:  On  page  710  of  the  transcript  I  asked  you  the 
following  question:  "Q.  You  did  not  consider  the  purchase  price 
" at  all  at  that  time,  did  you  ?  A.  No,  I  did  not". 

In  regard  to  the  Calaveras  purchases  I  asked  you  whether  or  not  760 
you  paid  any  attention  to  the  purchase  price,  and  you  said  you  did 
not.  When  did  you  change  your  mind,  and  what  caused  you  to  change 
your  mind?  A.  I  have  not  changed  my  mind  as  regards  to  those 
things,  Mr.  Steinhart;  the  Alameda  Sugar  Co.  purchases,  as  I  stated 
before,  I  had  no  particular  record  of  it.  I  knew  nothing  concerning 
the  agreement  of  sales,  or  the  facts  concerning  the  sale,  and  naturally 
I  could  not  take  that  into  consideration.  True,  I  knew  about  what 
the  purchase  price  was.  As  to  the  Calaveras  country,  I  knew  nothing 
concerning  the  price  of  those  lands,  and  I  do  not  at  the  present  time. 
My  testimony  this  afternoon  is  only  regarding  those  lands  I  pur- 
chased for  the  company. 

The  only  consideration  that  I  gave  any  purchases  was  such  weight 
as  I  might  have  given  the  purchase  price  paid  for  the  lands  pur- 
chased by  myself.  Referring  to  the  Pleasanton  lands,  which  I  pur- 
chased, I  will  give  them  as  I  read  them  from  the  map.  Beginning 
about  in  the  middle  of  the  map ;  piece  No.  273  contained  improvements  761 
consisting  of  two  dwelling  houses,  a  barn,  and  some  small  out  build- 
ings, which  I  believe  are  still  on  there.  Apparently  I  have  misplaced 
my  record  of  what  I  paid  for  this  piece.  I  don't  think  it  was  $1300. 
It  may  have  averaged  that  including  the  improvements.  They  were 

221 


Gale 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.   CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

fair  improvements,  and  my  remembrance  is  that  Joseph  V.  Anselmo 
told  me  that  the  improvements  he  had  upon  the  property  cost  him 
something  over  $1300.  This  was  for  the  dwelling  house  that  he  lived 
in.  The  other  dwelling  house  was  very  similar,  and  I  would  judge, 
cost  about  as  much.  The  barn  possibly  cost  $150. 

762  Parcel  272,  did  not  have  any  improvements  on  it,  and  $500  was 
what  was  paid  for  it  per  acre. 

Parcel  277,  had  improvements  on  it  consisting  of  a  dwelling 
house,  a  barn,  some  fences  and  out  buildings.  I  am  answering  what 
the  value  of  the  improvements  were  worth  without  giving  that  any 
consideration,  and  at  the  present  time  I  should  say  those  improve- 
ments were  worth  from  $1200  to  $1500.  The  purchase  price  of  that 
property  ran  about  $600  an  acre,  or  $8,000.  Including  the  improve- 
ments it  would  run  very  close  to  $800  an  acre. 

Parcel  278,  had  improvements  on  it  consisting  of  barns,  mens' 

763  houses,  corrals  amd  warehouse.     I  would  not  like  to  say  what  those 
improvements  amount  to  without  my  record.     These  same  improve- 
ments are  still  there.    My  figure  for  that  piece  is  $147,244,  or  $830.16 
an  acre. 

Parcel  275 ;  no  improvements  upon  that.  It  was  purchased  from 
Mr.  Callan,  who  resided  at  the  time  in  Danville,  for  a  little  over  $300 
an  acre. 

Parcel  282,  had  numerous  improvements  on  it,  consisting  of 
dwelling  houses,  barns,  and  out  buildings  of  a  general  character  used 
by  farmers,  and  those  improvements  are  still  there.  On  the  10.13 
acres  of  this  parcel  there  is  one  small  cow  barn;  on  the  rectangular 
strip  there  were  no  improvements;  on  the  other  portion  there  was  a 

764  dwelling  house,  and  on  the  19.47  acres  there  were  some  improvements. 
There  were  two  dwelling  houses  on  this  parcel  282,  one  on  the  piece 
containing  29.20  acres,  and  one  on  the  piece  containing  19.47  acres. 
It  is  rather  a  hard  question  to  answer,  as  to  how  much  those  were 
worth,  without  having  gone  over  them  particularly.     I  believe  there 
were  two  barns  and  a  shed  on  the  piece  containing  29  and  a  fraction 
acres,  which  are  worth  something,  as  you  have  to  pay  for  material  and 

765  labor  when  erecting  them. 

Parcel  283,  contains  barns,  dwelling,  sheds  and  other  general 
buildings  that  are  used  upon  farm  property.  This  is  Mr.  Schween's 
property,  and  my  remembrance  is  that  upon  the  106.72  acres  there  is 
one  large  dwelling  house,  one  large  barn,  one  hay  barn,  an  implement 
shed,  a  tank  house,  and  some  other  buildings,  which  were  there  the 
last  I  knew  of  them. 

Parcel  274,  contains  dwelling,  barn  and  some  other  small  out 
buildings ;  purchased  from  Cline,  who  lived  in  the  town  of  Pleasanton, 
and  had  the  property  under  rent.  Taking  a  guess  at  it,  I  should  say 
the  value  of  those  improvements  were  possibly  $500,  $600  or  $700. 


SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

Parcel  279,  contains  a  dwelling,  barn,  a  granary,  I  believe  an  im-        766 
plement  shed  and  a  tank  house,  which  are  still  there,  but  are  not  worth 
much  as  they  were  in  poor  condition. 

Parcel  271,  contains  substantial  improvements,  consisting  of  a 
dwelling  house,  a  couple  of  barns,  and  these  were  of  such  substantial 
nature  that  an  ordinary  farmer  would  never  be  willing  to  pay  any- 
where near  what  they  cost,  in  purchasing  the  land. 

Parcel  289,  contains  an  old  horse  shed,  ..and  a  fence  around  the 
property. 

Parcel  270,  Harris  &  Donohue  piece ;  a  cabin  upon  that  property 
about  10  x  10 ;  also  a  wind-mill  frame.  The  wind-mill  had  been  down 
for  several  years.  There  was  a  fence  around  the  property. 

Map  15,  239-M;  in  this  subdivision  the  650  acres  lie  along  the  767 
eastern  portion  of  the  property.  I  do  not  mean  by  that  the  north- 
easterly corner  of  the  property,  but  absolutely  up  against  the  line ;  it 
lies  to  the  west  of  the  San  Antonio  Creek,  and  runs  up  and  in  the  back 
end  connects  with  the  east  line  about  at  the  southeast  corner  of  239-0. 
That  is  grazing  land. 

FURTHER   RE-DIRECT   EXAMINATION   BY   MR.    GREENE. 

I  have  not  made  any  examination  or  appraisal  on  any  of  the 
improvements  to  which  I  have  just  referred.  In  appraising  these 
lands,  I  entirely  ignored  the  improvements  that  were  on  them,  as  I 
was  instructed  so  to  do.  Whatever  figures  I  have  given  as  the  value 
of  any  improvements  on  these  properties  have  been  simply  a  guess, 
without  any  particular  thought  as  to  what  those  improvements  were 
worth.  768 


Witness  C.  H.  SCHWEEN. 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  GREENE.  Schw 

I  live  in  Pleasanton,  and  have  lived  there  for  21  years.  Prior  to 
that  time  I  lived  about  four  miles  east  of  Pleasanton.  I  lived  there 
21  years.  Was  born  near  Haywards,  somewhere  near  what  they  call 
Tar  Flat,  and  have  spent  a  considerable  time  in  Alameda  County. 
I  am  familiar  with  the  town  of  Pleasanton,  and  also  with  the  prop- 
erties in  what  is  known  as  the  Arroyo  del  Valle.  My  experience  ex- 
tends as  far  as  the  town  of  Sunol,  and  I  also  know  the  San  Antonio 
Valley.  I  have  been  engaged  in  farming  principally,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  nine  years,  when  I  was  in  the  butcher  business.  I  started  in 
work  on  the  ranch,  I  guess,  when  I  was  about  seven  or  eight  years  old, 
and  I  left  the  ranch  nearly  21  years  ago.  I  engaged  in  the  butcher  769 
business  for  nine  years,  and  since  that  time  I  have  been  doing  odds 
and  ends,  devoting  my  time  principally  to  farming,  in  which  I  am  still 
interested.  During  the  time  I  was  in  the  butcher  business,  I  gained 

223 


Schween 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

familiarity  with  the  raising  of  live  stock,  and  also  with  the  feed  which 
live  stock  should  have,  and  do  get.  I  have  been,  for  quite  a  long  time, 
road  foreman,  and  immediately  after  I  quit  the  butcher  business,  I 
devoted  my  time  to  farming.  We  had  several  ranches  at  that  time. 
I,  or  my  family,  have  owned  land  in  Alameda  County.  We  owned  some 
of  the  properties  since  sold  to  the  Spring  Valley,  and  still  have  one 
ranch  about  four  miles  east  of  Pleasanton.  I  am  Vice-President  of 

770  the  Bank  of  Pleasanton,  and  have  occupied  that  position  about  four 
years  or  so.    I  have  been  director  for  the  past  four  or  five  years,  but 
not  prior  to  that  time.    As  an  officer  of  the  bank,  I  was  brought  into 
touch  with  real  estate  in  Pleasanton,  as  the  directors  of  the  Bank  of 
Pleasanton  generally  look  over  mortgages,  and  so  on. 

I  own  two  parcels  on  the  main  street  in  Pleasanton,  and  am  in- 
terested in  land  about  four  miles  east  of  Pleasanton;  something  like 
400  acres,  part  of  which  is  under  option  at  the  present  time,  and  the 
balance  we  still  own.  I  have  been  interested  in  cattle.  We  used  to 
have  stock  of  our  own  while  we  were  engaged  in  farming.  I  know  the 
property  in  what  is  generally  known  as  the  Arroyo  del  Valle,  and  have 

771  run  over  those  properties  perhaps  for  the  last  twenty  or  thirty  years, 
or  maybe  longer.     I  have  been  quite  familiar  with  them  for  the  last 
three  years,  and  have  examined  them  carefully.    I  am  now  employed 
by  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Co.,  having  charge  of  the  agricultural  de- 
partment under  Mr.  Roeding,  but  have  not  been  employed  by  the 
Spring  Valley  Water  Co.  prior  to  this  time.    My  duties  are  to  look 
after  the  tenants,  collect  rents,  and  to  lease  property  to  different 
parties  who  wish  to  rent.    I  pass  over  the  ground  day  by  day.    I  also 
have  to  look  after  the  squirrels  and  such  things.    I  have  been  requested 
to  determine  the  market  value  of  the  property  of  the  company  in  what 
is  known  as  the  Arroyo  del  Valle,  as  of  December  31,  1913,  which  I 
have  done.     I  have  been  over  the  property  every  week  since  I  was 
requested  to  make  that  appraisal.    I  have  been  over  each  portion  of  it 
at  some  time. 

CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.   STEINHART. 

772  Outside  of  these  two  pieces  of  land  that  I  own  in  Pleasanton, 
I  owned  a  parcel  of  land  containing  9  and  some  odd  acres  about 
three  miles  east  of  Pleasanton.  I  bought  that  and  sold  it.     It  is 
grazing  land,  and  part  of  it  can  be  farmed.    I  bought  another  parcel 
of  land  about  a  mile,  or  a  mile  and  a  half  east  of  Pleasanton,  con- 
taining 56  acres;  this  land  lying  near  the  Arroyo  Valle.    The  piece 
nearest  Pleasanton  is  right  on  the  Arroyo  Valle,  and  is  right  near 
the  brick-yard.     I  owned  another  piece  of  land  located  half-way 
between  Pleasanton  and  Livermore,  north  of  the  Arroyo  Valle. 

773  DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  GREENE. 

I  have  been  familiar  with  the  value  of  lands,  and  know  in  gen- 
eral the  sales  that  have  been  made  in  and  around  Pleasanton.  (Mr. 

224 


Sefaween 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

Greene  here  advised  the  Master  that  Mr.  Schween  will  value  the 
Arroyo  Valle  lands,  the  Pleasanton  lands,  lands  from  Pleasanton  to 
Sunol,  and  the  Sunol  lands  up  as  far  as  Calaveras,  which  includes 
the  San  Antonio.) 

I  valued  this  property  in  this  way.  Some  years  ago  I  had  land 
very  much  similar  to  the  Arroyo  del  Valle,  and  I  sold  it ;  judging  by 
what  I  got  for  that,  I  placed  a  valuation  on  the  lands  along  the 
Arroyo  Valle. 

Map  14,  parcel  239-Y;  lies  at  the  top  of  the  west  slope  of  the 
Arroyo  Valle,  and  could  be  appraised  with  land  of  the  San  Antonio 
property.    It  has  lots  of  water.    I  put  a  valuation  of  $20  an  acre  on 
that.     It  is  in  section  23,  contains  640  acres  at  $20  per  acre,  total       774 
$12,800. 

243-A  is  in  section  12,  lies  nearly  at  the  top  of  the  hill ;  is  nearly 
all  open  land,  with  the  exception  of  the  northerly  portion,  which  is 
covered  with  some  very  small,  scrubby  oak ;  it  is  accessible ;  there  is 
a  road  leading  up  to  it.  About  50  or  60  acres,  the  bulk  of  it,  can  be 
farmed.  80  acres,  at  $18  per  acre,  total  $1440. 

243-B,  is  on  both  sides  of  the  Arroyo  Valle.  Most  of  it  open 
grazing  land,  with  the  exception  of  small  portions  that  might  be 
covered  with  brush.  Some  small  gulches  running  through  it.  640 
acres  at  $25  per  acre,  total  $16,000. 

243-C,  is  in  section  14,  very  much  similar  in  character  to  the 
other  land.    The  soil  is  of  a  reddish  nature,  a  red  gravelly  soil.    In       775 
spots  it  has  an  adobe  loam,  which  they  call  mellow  adobe ;  is  con- 
siderably more  brushy  than  the  80  acre  tract  on  top  of  the  ridge,  and 
also  section  13.    120  acres  at  $20  per  acre,  total  $2400. 

243-D;  similar  to  the  other  land;  more  wooded,  and  perhaps 
somewhat  rougher ;  is  accessible.  40  acres  at  $20  per  acre,  total  $800. 

243-1,  243-J,  and  243-K,  I  have  appraised  as  a  whole  in  section 
24,  containing  480  acres.  This  is  not  as  good  as  the  other.  It  is 
somewhat  rougher.  Do  not  think  there  is  as  much  feed  on  it  as  on 
some  of  the  other  sections.  I  placed  the  valuation  of  $15  an  acre  on 
it,  which  for  243-1,  would  make  a  total  valuation  of  $2400,  and  the 
same  for  J  and  K. 

243-M,  lies  pretty  close  to  the  top  of  the  ridge ;  is  quite  open. 
Part  of  it  can  be  farmed.  A  gulch  running  through  it,  and  I  think 
that  gulch  is  somewhat  brushy.  87.79  acres  at  $20  per  acre,  total 
$1755.80. 

243-N,  in  section  18;  very  much  similar  to  the  other  portion, 
although  I  think  somewhat  better.  Has  more  farming  land,  and  is 
more  open.  238  acres  at  $30  per  acre,  total  $7,134.30. 

243-O,  is  near  the  creek.    23  acres  at  $30  per  acre,  total  $690. 

243-P,  in  section  18,  is  quite  open.    Nearly  all  of  it  can  be  farmed.        776 
A  creek  running  through  it.    Fairly  good  farming  land.    Character  of 
soil  somewhat  dark.    160  acres  at  $35  per  acre,  total  $5,600. 

225 


Schween 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

243-Q,  in  section  19,  is  on  both  sides  of  the  Arroyo  Valle,  and  is 
quite  open,  good  grazing  land.  661  acres  at  $17.50  per  acre,  total 
$11,581.50. 

243-R,  in  section  29,  quite  steep.  Lies  on  both  sides  of  the 
Arroyo  Valle.  Rough;  considerable  waste  land;  some  fairly  good 
grazing  land.  640  acres  at  $12.50  per  acre,  total  $8000. 

243-S,  in  section  30,  considerably  better  than  section  29.  Small 
portion  lies  to  the  north  of  the  Arroyo  del  Valle ;  balance  on  south- 
erly slope ;  fairly  good  grazing.  Some  rough,  rugged  hills.  324  acres 
at  $17.50  per  acre,  total  $5,671.75. 

243-T,  and  243-U  I  have  appraised  together.  They  are  in  sec- 
tion 32;  quite  rough  and  steep.  Not  very  good  pasture  land.  320 
acres  at  $8  per  acre,  total  $2560. 

243-V,  section  33,  not  as  good  as  T  and  U.     Quite  rough  and 

777  rugged;  open  parts  in  it,  and  good  grazing;  abundance  of  water; 
good  springs  for  grazing  purposes.    640  acres  at  $7.50  per  acre,  total 
$4,800. 

Parcel  247,  Cresta  Blanca  Tract,  is  isolated  and  very  rough.  Of 
no  value,  except  for  grazing  purposes.  164  acres  at  $20  per  acre, 
total  $3,280. 

268-N,  lies  in  the  bottom  of  the  Arroyo  del  Valle  Creek,  with  the 
exception  of  about  three  acres  of  prune  orchard,  and  is  of  no  value  ex- 
cept for  the  gravel,  and  for  grazing  purposes.  Schween  Bros,  sold  that 
gravel  bed  for  $150  per  acre.  The  Schween  Bros,  gravel  bed  is 
west  of  this  property ;  there  is  a  county  road  between  the  properties. 
(This  last  was  stricken  out.)  214.87  acres,  according  to  the  map; 

778  a  total  valuation  of  $32,230.50. 

Map  10,  parcel  239-p;  this  property  all  lies  south  of  County 
Road  2000,  and  in  what  is  known  as  the  artesian  well  belt.  Well 
situated  for  irrigation,  with  lots  of  water.  The  pumping  station  is 
located  on  this  property.  Well  situated  and  suitable  for  subdivision 
purposes.  Valuation  of  $500  per  acre,  total  $15,000. 

Parcel  239-d,  lies  on  the  hillside  known  as  the  Hearst  property. 
Partly  wooded ;  good  for  home  sites.  Total  acreage  18.067  at  $200 
per  acre,  total  valuation  $3613.40. 

779  239-e,  that  and  the  adjoining  pieces  are  in  what  is  called  the 
artesian  belt,  and  included  in  that  designation  at  the  rate  of  $500  an 
acre,  are  239-c,  e,  f,  g,  h,  j,  k,  q,  s,  t,  u,  v,  r.     I  include  nearly  all 
those,  with  the  exception  of  d,  and  i,  between  the  railroad  track  and 
the  creek,  and  below  County  Road  2000.     These  properties  all  lie 
south  of  County  Road  2000,  and  are  used  for  truck  garden,  alfalfa, 
hay  and  grain,  berries  and  some  fruit. 

239-i,  lies  at  the  extreme  end  of  the  property  of  the  Spring 
Valley  Water  Co.  on  the  south  of  County  Road  2000,  and  between 
the  two  railroad  tracks ;  one  large  hill  upon  the  property,  which  is  of 

226 


Schween 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

a  red  gravelly  clay.  One  knoll  of  black  gravelly  loam.  I  put  an 
appraised  value  of  $250  per  acre  on  this. 

Questioned  by  Master. 

That  is  good  for  vineyard  and  for  hay  and  grain.  You  can  raise 
vegetables,  such  as  potatoes,  which  they  have  been  doing  for  the  past 
few  years.  Some  parts  of  it  can  raise  alfalfa,  which  they  are  doing 
at  the  present  time.  780 

DIRECT    EXAMINATION   BY   MR.    GREENE. 

I  make  a  difference  in  the  value  between  that  parcel  and  the  others, 
which  I  lumped  together,  because  this  is  not  as  good,  the  soil  being  of  a 
reddish  nature,  and  not  as  good  as  the  black  gravelly  loam,  and  you 
could  not  raise  vegetables  on  that  red  hill,  and  you  could  not  very 
well  do  it  on  the  black  gravel  knoll.  The  other  is  level,  and  this  is 
hilly.  Contains  92.501  acres,  total  value  $23,125.25. 

239-1,  m,  n,  o,  p ;  these  properties  lie  on  the  north  side  of  County 
Road  2000,  and  bounded  on  the  north  by  Arroyo  Valle.  I  valued 
them  at  $450  per  acre.  They  are  very  much  similar  to  the  lands 
south  of  County  Road  2000,  and  can  be  used  for  alfalfa,  fruit,  vege- 
tables of  all  kinds,  hay  and  grain.  There  is  a  pear  orchard  close  by, 
peaches  and  some  apples.  I  placed  the  value  of  $450  per  acre  on 
these  lands,  as  against  $500  on  the  other,  because  the  soil  is  a  trifle 
lighter,  and  there  are  light  streaks  of  gravel  running  through  parts  781 
of  it;  in  one  place  in  particular,  there  is  what  is  called  the  Dry 
Creek,  containing  perhaps  5  or  10  acres  that  is  not  so  valuable,  ex- 
cept perhaps  for  hay  and  grain.  You  could  not  raise  any  vegetables 
on  that  particular  portion. 

241-G ;  it  is  rather  sandy,  getting  continually  better  up  to  239-1, 
containing  a  bad  piece.  76  acres  at  $450  per  acre,  total  $34,200. 

268-0,  is  what  is  called  the  hop  yard;  very  much  similar  to  the 
other  land,  as  far  as  the  use  is  concerned.  Can  be  used  for  vegetable 
purposes ;  well  adapted  to  alfalfa ;  also  hay  and  grain,  and  beets  and 
fruit.  299.74  acres  at  $500  per  acre,  total  $149,870.  There  is  a  big 
demand  for  land  of  that  character. 

268-P,  known  as  the  Northern  Addition  to  the  town  of  Pleas- 
anton;  can  be  sold  as  town  lots;  very  fertile  soil;  is  used  for  truck 
gardening  and  fruit.  11.64  acres  at  $1200  an  acre,  total  $13,968.  It 
is  due  north,  and  just  on  the  outskirts  of  the  town  of  Pleasanton. 
The  boundary  line  across  the  creek  Arroyo  del  Valle,  two  small  par- 
eels  adjoin  it. 

268-Q,  called  the  "Big  Field"  of  the  Lilienthal  Ranch.  241.43 
acres  at  $500  per  acre,  total  $120,715.  Principally  has  been  used  for 
farming  until  last  year  we  planted  about  15  acres  in  alfalfa,  and 
this  year  we  also  planted  about  15  acres  as  an  experiment,  together 
with  raising  beets.  It  is  good  vegetable  land,  but  is  somewhat  higher 
than  around  2000.  It  seems  they  always  want  to  rent  it  if  they 
possibly  can  for  grain  raising. 

227 


Schweeri 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

268-R,  is  the  Lilienthal  property,  where  the  main  house  is 
located,  on  the  west  side  of  the  road.  64.70  acres,  at  $550  per  acre, 
total  $35,585. 

Questioned  by  Master. 

I  put  a  valuation  of  $550  on  that  because  it  is  north  of  a  vege- 
table garden,  and  it  looks  to  me  as  though  it  could  be  bought  by 
the  vegetable  people ;  they  would  be  willing  to  buy  it,  and  pay  that 
much  money  for  it. 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  GREENE. 

783  268-S,  is  called  the  Alameda  Sugar  Co.  land;  east  side  of  the 
road.     Can  be  used  for  raising  beets.     This  year  it  is  in  grain, 
barley,   wheat   and   oats.     296.679   acres   at   $275   per   acre,   total 
$81,586.72. 

268-T,  is  where  the  beet  dump  is — a  station  called  Asco ;  a  long 
narrow  strip.  3.78  acres  at  $375  per  acre,  total  $1417.50. 

268-TJ,  is  the  Alameda  Sugar  Co.  property  west  of  the  hop  yard ; 
principal  uses  raising  sugar  beets.  A  small  portion  is  farmed  this 
year  also.  785  acres  at  $325  per  acre,  total  $255,125. 

268- V,  also  Alameda  Sugar  Co.  property ;  west  side  of  road  from 
Pleasanton  to  Santa  Rita.  338.01  acres  at  $275  per  acre,  total 
$92,552.75. 

Parcel  270,  known  as  the  Donohue  property ;  west  of  county  road 
leading  to  Santa  Rita  from  Pleasanton.  102.28  acres,  at  $325  per 
acre,  total  $33,241. 

Parcel  271 ;  the  Bryan  property ;  east  of  the  county  road  leading 

784  to  Santa  Rita.    63.78  acres  at  $275  per  acre,  total  $17,539.50. 

Referring  to  parcel  270,  at  the  present  time  it  is  pasture ;  graz- 
ing purposes ;  can  also  be  used  for  raising  potatoes,  beets,  and  garden 
truck.  Parcel  271  is  not  as  good  as  270.  I  hardly  think  you  can 
raise  beets  in  sufficient  quantity  to  make  it  an  object.  The  soil  is  not 
as  fertile.  Good  pasture  land.  Can  raise  grain  on  it.  Last  year 
they  had  a  crop  of  barley. 

FOURTEENTH  HEARING.         AUGUST  2,  1915. 
Witness  C.  H.  SCHWEEN. 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  GREENE. 

785-788  The  Master  here  offered  certain  suggestions  as  a  possible  means 

of  saving  time. 

788  (Certain  corrections  made  in  the  transcript.) 

789  The  following  stipulation  was  dictated  by  the  Master:  It  is 
stipulated  that  whenever  in  the  testimony  of  Mr.  C.  A.  Gale  the 
name  "Swayne"  appears  it  is  intended  to  be  "Schween."    Do  you 
stipulate  to  that,  Mr.  Steinhart? 

228 


Schween 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

Mr.  Steinhart :  Yes,  your  Honor. 

Introduction  of  tabulation  "Value  of  Alameda  and  Santa  Clara 
Lands".  It  was  prepared  under  my  direction,  and  sets  forth  the 
lands  valued  by  me.  The  last  three  columns  correctly  set  forth  the 
acreage,  value  per  acre,  and  the  total  value  as  to  each  parcel.  790 

Offered  in  evidence  and  received  as  "Plaintiff's  Exhibit  32". 

Parcel  272,  map  10,  is  in  alfalfa ;  is  of  rich  sediment  loam ;  can 
raise  most  anything  on  it  in  the  line  of  vegetables  and  alfalfa,  etc. 
The  lands  which  appear  on  map  10  can  be  used  for  vegetables,  fruit 
to  a  certain  extent,  alfalfa,  hay,  grain  and  berries,  and  are  all 
actually  used  for  one  or  the  other  of  those  purposes  at  the  present 
time,  including  some  portions  in  pasture. 

Parcel  273;  used  for  the  same  purpose  as  parcel  272.    It  is  in 
vegetables  this  year,  such  as  corn  and  potatoes.     Rich,  sediment       791 
loam. 

On  the  land  to  which  I  have  just  referred,  generally  two  crops 
of  the  following  variety  can  be  grown  in  a  season.  For  instance : 
on  these  lands  some  times  the  hay  crop  is  planted  along  about  Jan- 
uary— some  parts  may  be  in  December — and  it  is  harvested  in  the 
latter  part  of  March.  Then  they  immediately  plow  the  ground  and 
prepare  it  for  vegetables,  and  will  continue  the  use  of  it  for  beets, 
and  such  like,  until  they  seed  the  ground  for  their  hay  in  the  Spring.  792 

Referring  to  1915,  regarding  land  which  has  been  devoted  ex- 
clusively to  alfalfa,  the  first  crop  was  harvested  immediately  after 
the  rain  ceased.  They  have  been  harvesting  since,  about  a  crop  a 
month,  and  judging  from  what  I  can  see,  will  probably  harvest  six 
crops  this  year.  The  last  crop  they  generally  cut  along  about  the 
first  of  December.  I  have  taken  particular  notice  of  the  land  leased 
to  Heath,  formerly  called  the  Lilienthal  Ranch;  they  start  cutting 
green  feed  along  about  the  first  of  March,  and  continue  until  nearly 
the  first  of  the  year.  Last  year  they  were  cutting  green  feed  for 
about  nine  months.  It  is  hard  to  arrive  at  the  number  of  crops. 
They  cut  six  crops  on  an  average,  and  they  will  do  the  same  thing 
this  year.  The  crop  per  acre  this  year,  I  think,  will  run  for  the  first 
cutting,  in  the  neighborhood  of  three  tons,  or  possibly  four;  the 
second  cutting  will  be  about  two.  It  grows  a  little  less  as  the  cut-  793 
tings  continue.  It  is  rather  difficult  to  determine  what  those  crops 
aggregate  per  acre  for  the  entire  season,  but  I  should  judge  all  the 
way  from  eight,  nine  or  ten  for  those  lands  that  have  been  in  alfalfa 
for  a  number  of  years,  and  more,  especially  in  the  late  years,  when 
they  have  been  irrigating  once  in  awhile  to  destroy  the  gophers  and 
field  mice.  This  irrigating  might  benefit  the  alfalfa  a  little  in  its 
growth  in  the  Fall  of  the  year,  but  not  to  any  great  extent.  All  of 
this  low  land  on  both  sides  of  Road  2000 ;  in  fact  all  the  land  on  map 
10,  is  adapted  to  dairying  purposes.  The  lands  are  not  devoted  to 

229 


Schween 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

dairying  purposes,  because  there  are  no   accommodations  for  the 

794  dairy  people,  and  there  are  no  buildings  on  these  lands  for  dairy 
purposes.    Parties  who  come  out  to  consult  me  will  say,  "We  want 
suitable  buildings  for  that  purpose ;  will  Spring  Valley  supply  such 
buildings  for  us?"    All  I  can  say,  is,  that  I  am  not  positive  whether 
they  will  or  not.     That  that  is  a  matter  to  be  taken  up  with  the 
Spring  Valley  people  at  the  main  office.    Otherwise,  it  is  somewhat 
difficult  for  me  to  answer  the  question,  "why  aren't  there  buildings 
on  those  lands  for  dairying  purposes". 

To  explain  what  I  meant  when  I  said  there  had  been  some 
alfalfa  planted  as  an  experiment,  many  parties  raising  alfalfa  have 
asked  me  what  variety  of  alfalfa  is  best  adapted  to  this  climate.  I 
tell  them  that  I  will  take  the  matter  up  with  Mr.  Roeding,  and  upon 
doing  so  he  has  sent  different  varieties  of  alfalfa  to  experiment  with, 

795  to  see  what  variety  was  best  adapted  to  the  soil.    The  purpose  was 
to  see  whether  one  variety  was  better  adapted  for  growth  in  that 
particular  place  than  another.    To  the  best  of  my  judgment,  you  can 
plant  almost  all  of  the  land  on  map  10,  with  the  exception  of  this 
red,  gravelly  hill  south  of  County  Road  2000,  and  the  railroad  tracks, 
in  parcel  239-i.    Alfalfa  can  be  grown  on  these  lands  successfully 
without  irrigation. 

Questioned  by  Master. 

That  would  cover  all  the  Chabot  property;  the  big  piece  below 
it,  parcel  268-U,  and  the  outlying  land  on  the  edge  of  the  map,  like 
parcels  274  and  268-S. 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION   BY   MR.   GREENE. 

796  Referring  to  these  lands,  adapted  to  the  growth  of  alfalfa,  por- 
tions of  which  I  have  valued  at  $500  or  over,  and  other  portions  at 
$300  or  $255 ;  in  those  that  I  have  valued  less  the  soil  is  not  as  good, 
nor  as  fertile ;  in  many  instances  it  is  of  a  heavy,  adobe  nature.  The 
parts  I  have  appraised  higher  are  of  a  rich,  sediment  loam,  and 
better  adapted  to  alfalfa,  as  the  land  that  contains  richer  soil  affects 
the  resulting  crop,  and  it  is  easier  to  work.    I  have  been  trying  out 
some  of  these  heavier  adobe  lands  with  good  results.     This  year  I 
planted  some  as  late  as  May;  we  have  cut  one  crop  already,  and 
another  is  growing.     By  irrigating  the  first  year,  the  alfalfa  roots 
aon't  go  into  the  ground,  they  stay  on  top;  they  are  always  looking 
for  moisture,  and  with  non-irrigation,  the  roots  must  go  down  in 
the  ground  for  moisture,  and  in  the  second  year  you  would  have 
almost  as  good  a  crop  as  you  would  otherwise  have  on  land  that 

797  has  been  planted  maybe  four  or  five  years. 

Parcel  274,  is  called  the  Kline  property,  and  is  situated  on  the 
road  leading  from  Santa  Rita  to  Livermore.  It  is  somewhat  of  an 
adobe  nature,  which  during  the  Summer  is  of  a  chocolate  color,  and 
in  the  Winter  is  of  a  darker  nature.  It  has  a  little  alkali  in  it  in 
spots. 

230 


..Scbween 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

Parcel  275,  is  west  of  the  road  leading  from  Pleasanton  to  Santa 
Rita;  is  in  pasture  at  the  present  time,  and  is  well  adapted  to  al- 
falfa; is  good  rich  loam. 

Parcel  276,  called  the  Old  Rose  piece,  lying  on  Rose  avenue. 
Rich,  bottom  sediment  loam,  somewhat  light  in  color;  this  is  good 
for  home  sites,  and  could  be  sold  in  subdivisions.  Good  for  all  kinds 
of  vegetables,  and  is  planted  to  vegetables  this  season.  Has  gen- 
erally been  in  beets.  You  can  raise  fruit — peaches,  pears  and  some 
apples.  There  is  a  continued  demand  for  vegetable  lands  in  and 
around  Pleasanton. 

Questioned  by  Master. 

I  made  that  figure  $650,  as  against  the  $500  for  the  Lilienthal 
piece,  or  the  hop-yard  piece  across  the  arroyo,  because  I  think  that       798 
could  be  sold  in  small  parcels,  and  would  be  worth  that  much  money. 
It  is  a  good  fertile  piece  of  land,  and  always  produces  well  per  acre. 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  GREENE. 

There  is  scarcely  any  difference  in  the  soil  between  those  two 
parcels,  and  furthermore,  it  is  within  the  incorporated  limits  of  the 
town  of  Pleasanton,  which  has  some  effect  on  the  value  of  those 
lands. 

Parcel  277 ;  is  a  small  parcel  facing  on  Black  Avenue,  called  the 
Anselmo  property;  is  in  vegetables;  is  the  same  as  parcels  272  and 
273.  I  have  appraised  those  three  pieces,  together  with  parcel  278, 
at  the  same  amount,  as  there  is  practically  no  difference. 

Those  who  raise  just  a  small  amount  of  vegetables,  such  as  a 
few  potatoes,  generally  bring  them  to  Livermore  to  be  disposed  of 
in  the  local  market  there.  Any  surplus,  such  as  cabbages,  lettuce, 
potatoes,  onions,  or  corn,  they  generally  ship  to  the  city  markets. 
By  county  road  from  Pleasanton  to  Oakland,  by  way  of  Dublin, 
the  distance  is  about  28  miles. 

Parcel  279 ;  lies  near  Santa  Rita,  on  the  road  between  Santa 
Rita  and  Livermore.  I  cannot  say  whether  it  is  quite  as  good  as  799 
the  Kline  property.  A  portion  of  it  might  be  a  little  bit  lower;  a 
little  of  the  higher  land  is  perhaps  a  little  bit  better  for  grazing 
purposes,  and  that  is  what  it  is  generally  used  for,  because  there 
is  a  great  demand  for  land  for  that  purpose ;  more  so  than  for  any- 
thing else.  I  appraised  274  at  $250,  and  279  at  $225,  because  I  think 
the  other  is  a  trifle  better  pasture,  and  271  I  appraised  at  $275  be- 
cause that  is  still  higher  ground,  and  better  adapted  for  pasture 
than- the  other.  I  mean  by  that  that  it  grows  more  feed  per  acre. 

Questioned  by  Master. 

These  lands  can  be  farmed  also,  but  at  $250  or  $275  an  acre,  they 
will  pay  good  interest  if  used  for  pasturage. 

231 


Schween 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 
DIRECT    EXAMINATION    BY   MR.    GREENE. 

I  am  not  positive  as  to  the  rentals  we  get  for  that  land  for  pas- 
turage purposes,  as  this  land  has  been  leased  for  three  or  four  years, 

800  but  I  have  not  seen  a  copy  of  the  lease.     They  pay  me  the  rents 
quarterly,  and  I  have  not  figured  what  the  company  gets  per  acre 
each  year.    The  piece  of  land  that  belongs  to  the  Schween  Company, 
parcel  283,  I  have  collected  the  rents  for,  and  I  know  we  have  paid 
ourselves  at  the  rate  of  $20  per  acre.     This  land  is  used,  35  acres 
for  pasturage  at  a  yearly  rental  of  $20  per  acre,  and  I  have  been 
offered  $26  for  it  for  the  next  year.    This  parcel  283  is  east  of  the 
county  road,  leading  from  Pleasanton  to  Santa  Rita.    It  is  a  tract 
along  there  containing  35  acres ;  this  piece  of  land,  283,  is  subdivided, 
and  a  part  thereof  is  in  pasture,  and  that  belongs  to  the  Spring  Val- 
ley Water  Co.,  and  is  the  one  to  which  I  refer  as  being  rented  at 

801  $20  an  acre  per  annum  for  pasturage  uses. 

802  Parcels  282 ;  there  are  three  of  them.    The  De  Freitas  property ; 
one  parcel  contains  40  acres,  and  the  other  20  acres.    It  is  practically 
the  same  land  as  the  Lilienthal  land ;  there  is  not  a  great  deal  of 
difference  in  it,  only  that  it  is  a  little  further  away  from  the  town 
of  Pleasanton ;  is  good  sediment  soil  and  very  fertile ;  has  been  used 
for  grain  purposes  for  a  good  many  years,  and  is  still  producing 
good  barley.    It  has  been  cropped  with  grain  for  the  last  25  years 
steady;  perhaps  during  that  time  it  may  have  been  pastured  one 
season,  but  not  more  than  that.     We  consider  an  average  crop  in 
through  there,  from  30  to  40  bags  per  acre. 

Questioned  by  Master. 

The  10.15  acres  are  pastured  at  the  present  time;  that  is  east 
of  the  county  road  leading  from  Pleasanton  to  Santa  Rita,  and  the 

803  other  pieces  north  of  the  railroad  are  farming  land. 

DIRECT    EXAMINATION    BY    MR.    GREENE. 

The  land  to  which  I  have  just  referred  as  being  in  grain,  pro- 
duces crops  during  the  dry  season.  For  example,  during  1912  and 
1913,  we  had  very  little  rain,  and  as  near  as  I  can  remember,  had 
about  20  bags  to  the  acre.  That  is  considered  very  good  during  a 
dry  year.  In  dry  years  you  realize  twice  as  much  for  your  crop,  and 
the  expense  of  harvesting  is  very  much  less,  so  a  person  often  does 
as  well  in  a  season  of  that  kind  as  he  perhaps  would  in  a  favorable 
season. 

Parcel  283,  four  pieces,  purchased  from  the  Schween  Company, 
and  nearly  all  used  for  grain  raising.  Very  little  distinction  be- 
tween the  different  parcels.  The  one  containing  40  acres,  I  felt  was 
not  quite  as  good  as  the  rest,  and  consequently  put  an  appraised  value 
at  a  somewhat  less  figure  per  acre  on  it.  That  is  the  parcel  away 

804  from  the  other  land  to  the  north.     The  parcel  through  which  the 


Schween 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

railroad  track  goes,  I  valued  at  $525,  and  the  parcel  containing  101 
and  a  fraction  acres,  at  $450.  The  difference  is  owing  to  the  fact 
that  the  soil  is  a  little  bit  heavier,  and  perhaps  a  little  bit  richer 
in  nature. 

Questioned  by  Master. 

When  we  had  it,  we  got  better  crops  of  grain  on  the  140  acre 
piece  than  in  the  field  over  further  to  the  east. 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  GREENE. 

I  kept  a  record  on  this  140  acre  piece  in  1910,  I  think,  when  we 
had  a  portion  to  oats  and  to  wheat  that  season;  the  oats  went  some- 
thing like  44  bags  to  the  acre,  which  we  sold  at  $2.25  per  sack  in  the 
field.  We  baled  the  straw  and  sold  it  at  65  cts.  per  bale.  The  gross 
income  was  $100  per  acre,  I  think,  and  our  net  profit  was  something 
like  $80  per  acre  that  year,  on  that  portion  of  the  land.  It  would 
figure  the  same  with  the  portion  we  had  in  wheat.  It  went  28  bags 
to  the  acre ;  we  were  offered  2y2  cents  for  the  seed ;  it  went  152  Ibs. 
to  the  bag.  We  sold  the  straw  at  75  cts.  per  bale.  T.he  seed  was  abso- 
lutely clean  seed,  free  from  oats  or  barley. 

Parcel  284 ;  lies  between  Santa  Rita  and  Dublin ;  a  very  small 
tract,  on  the  east  side,  very  fertile,  and  is  in  beets  at  the  present,  with 
the  exception  of  perhaps  a  couple  of  acres  in  pasture.  It  produces  a  805 
very  good  beet  crop.  What  we  call  a  good  crop  is  20  or  25  tons.  The 
gentleman  who  had  the  beets  this  year  thought  he  would  have  25  tons 
to  the  acre,  and  I  think  he  will.  Beets  bring  this  year  $5.50  f.  o.  b. 
Pleasanton,  and  have  run  in  previous  years  about  the  same.  The 
freight  is  45  cts.  a  ton  from  Pleasanton  to  Asco,  which  is  on  piece 
268-T.  That  is  where  they  deliver  the  beets  at  the  present  time.  Some 
of  the  beet  growers  have  told  me  that  they  had  beets  for  fifteen  years 
steadily;  my  advice  to  them  would  be  to  change;  to  plant  something 
else  and  let  the  land  rest  a  season,  which  would  be  sufficient,  and  then 
they  could  start  in  with  a  crop  of  beets  over  again.  They  have  cropped 
beets  for  a  number  of  successive  seasons  on  the  Alameda  Sugar  Co.'s 
lands,  and  on  what  they  call  the  Kruse  lands.  That  is  right  near  806 
Pleasanton. 

Parcel  286 ;  Wenig  property.  There  is  a  successful  dairy  located 
on  this  property  at  the  present  time.  The  surroundings  are  used  for 
pasture.  They  had  a  crop  of  hay  on  part  of  it.  It  is  somewhat  diffi- 
cult at  the  present  time  to  give  the  proportion  as  to  the  amount  of 
land  for  a  given  number  of  stock  for  dairy  purposes  in  Pleasanton.  I 
have  not  given  that  matter  any  thought.  On  the  Heath  dairy,  I  think, 
they  have  between  600  and  700  acres,  and  he  informed  me  awhile  ago 
that  tliey  had  1000  head  of  stock  altogether,  but  during  the  spring 
he  generally  rents  some  other  pasture  for  a  short  time. 

Parcel  288;  the  Chabot  piece.  This  season  there  are  not  beets 
on  it.  I  have  seen  good  crops  growing  there.  Some  seasons  there  are 


Schween 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

807  300  acres  of  the  entire  tract  in  beets.    It  is  of  an  adobe  nature.    Along 
about  the  first  of  April  the  ground  gets  pretty  solid  and  stiff,  and  it 
is  hard  to  prepare  it  for  beets.    Consequently,  they  have  raised  some- 
what of  a  crop  of  barley.    Not  a  good  crop,  because  of  the  late  rains, 
and  the  ground  being  so  wet  it  was  difficult  to  work.    The  bulk  of  the 
land  has  been  in  volunteer  hay  most  of  this  season,  with  small  parts 
of  it  in  alfalfa.    A  good  many  of  the  tenants  on  the  Chabot  land  wish 
to  try  and  plant  alfalfa  instead  of  raising  beets  and  grain.    This  land 
varies  a  little  in  parts.    In  the  northeast  portion  is  a  streak  of  alkali ; 
also  along  what  they  call  the  Alamo  Canal  there  is  a  piece  containing 
50  or  60  acres  with  some  alkali  in  it.    It  is  somewhat  low,  and  not 
quite  as  good  as  the  rest.    The  northwest  portion,  adjoining  the  road 
leading  from  Santa  Rita  to  Dublin  is  very  fertile  and  well  adapted 
for  alfalfa.    On  the  east  side  the  soil  is  somewhat  of  an  adobe  nature. 
Part  of  that  is  what  they  call  a  sediment,  which  is  deposited  on  the 
adobe  and  makes  it  a  very  fertile  and  rich  land.     I  have  seen  very 
good  results  from  that  land  in  the  line  of  raising  barley  and  oats,  but 

808  owing  to  continual  rains  the  lands  were  so  wet  that  the  farmers  could 
not  prepare  them  for  crops,  and  consequently  the  bulk  of  it  is  in 
volunteer  hay  this  season.     A  little  drainage  by  means  of  ditches 
would  help  this  land  to  a  great  extent,  so  far  as  agricultural  purposes 
are  concerned.     There  is  scarcely  any  drainage  on  that  land  now. 
There  is  a  drain  along  Road  2578  which  comes  from  Pleasanton 
through  the  Spring  Valley  lands  toward  Dublin.     The  Alamo  Canal 
is  the  next  drainage,  and  there  is  a  small  drain  also  between  what  they 
call  the  Hewlett  property,  parcel  291,  and  the  Chabot  land. 

Parcel  291  is  practically,  taking  it  as  a  whole,  the  same  land  as 
parcel  288,  with  the  exception  possibly  of  certain  parts.  There  is  a 
small  portion  adjoining  the  road  between  Santa  Rita  and  Dublin 
where  there  is  some  alkali,  and  then  south  of  the  S.  P.  R.  R.,  going  to 
Contra  Costa  County,  there  is  75  acres  or  so  that  are  very  fertile. 

Parcel  267-V;  is  practically  the  same  lay  of  land  as  parcel  291, 
808%  which  lies  next  to  it.  With  regard  to  the  land  that  we  sold  to  the 

809  company,  and  the  lands  generally  about  it  in  the  immediate  neigh- 
borhood, I  feel  that  we  have  a  little  the  best  land  there,  because  it 
yields  much  more  per  acre  than  the  land  east  of  it. 

268-Q,  the  241  acre  piece;  is  called  the  Lilienthal  Ranch,  and  is 
east  of  the  county  road  going  from  Pleasanton  to  Santa  Rita.  It  has 
been  used  for  raising  barley,  oats,  wheat  and  so  on,  up  to  the  present 
time,  and  also  this  year,  with  the  exception  of  a  small  portion  which 
is  planted  to  alfalfa.  Something  like  25  acres  were  planted  last  year 
in  alfalfa,  but  it  has  been  in  grain  so  long,  and  there  has  been  a  good 
paying  crop,  that  they  still  remain  raising  grain,  because  a  grain 
farm  is  much  easier  than  beet  raising,  the  marketing  of  fruits,  and  so 
on,  and  because  there  are  only  some  months  of  the  year  you  have  to 
work. 


Schween 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

The  Pleasanton  lands,  total  acreage,  5,988.479 ;  rate  per  acre        810 
$338.76;  total  valuation  $2,028,651.01.     There  are  included  in  that 
acreage,  aside  from  properties  which  appear  on  map  10,  parcels  N-268 
and  247,  which  appear  on  map  14. 

The  Arroyo  Valle  total  acreage  is  5,094.50  acres;  rate  per  acre 
$17.26 ;  total  value  $88,433.35.  In  my  opinion,  those  properties  could 
have  been  sold  for  that  amount  as  of  December  31,  1913,  as  could  also 
the  Pleasanton  properties  for  the  amount  which  I  placed  on  them  of 
$2,028,651.01. 

Map  12,  parcel  228 ;  is  located  between  what  they  call  the  Alameda 
Bridge,  going  toward  the  Mission,  and  directly  west  of  that,  over  on 
a  plateau,  and  also  comes  down  to  the  creek  there.    It  is  of  a  reddish 
nature,  most  of  it,  somewhat  lighter ;  rolling  land ;  some  of  it  a  little        811 
steep.    A  small  portion  of  it  is  in  a  vineyard. 

Questioned  by  Master. 

I  should  judge  one-half  of  it,  or  perhaps  a  little  more  is  cleared, 
and  there  is  a  part  of  it  in  vineyard,  grain  and  hay. 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  GREENE. 

239-b,  two  parcels ;  lies  along  the  creek  a  little  south  of  the  Nus- 
baumer  property;  good  for  raising  hay  on  small  parcels  of  it;  per- 
haps could  raise  some  vegetables  on  it. 

239-W;  a  small  parcel  of  land  that  lies  between  the  Southern 
Pacific  and  the  county  road.  The  same  character  of  land ;  at  one  time 
was  in  a  prune  orchard.  It  is  a  soil  somewhat  better;  seems  to  be  a 
black  gravelly  loam. 

Questioned  by  Master. 

I  have  given  that  a  value  of  $350,  as  it  is  far  better  than  239-b. 
The  piece  which  I  have  valued  is  the  one  through  which  the  railroad        812 
did  not  run.    I  only  placed  a  valuation  on  one  portion  of  it ;  on  both 
sides  of  the  Western  Pacific  there  are  two  small  parcels.    I  only  put 
the  valuation  on  one  parcel. 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION   BY   MR.   GREENE. 

F-239 ;  lies  in  Alameda  Creek  below  Sunol.  A  small  orchard  on 
it  and  quite  a  little  flat.  Good  for  home  sites ;  part  of  it  is  steep,  that 
is  the  southerly  portion  as  you  go  up  the  hill  a  very  small  distance; 
quite  a  nice  little  flat  there;  an  orchard  on  it.  813 

239-G ;  very  fertile  piece  of  land ;  lies  on  the  Sunol  road  leading 
towards  Pleasanton,  and  is  in  corn  this  year,  and  is  well  adapted  for 
beans  and  garden  truck. 

239-H ;  lies  west  or  northwest  of  Sunol.  It  is  nearly  all,  with  the 
exception  of  perhaps  100  acres,  in  hay;  balance  all  pasture  land. 
Good  open  country,  some  of  it  quite  steep,  other  portions  rolling. 
Known  as  the  Stone  property. 

239-1,  239-J,  239-K;  very  small  parcels  in  Sunol.    Appraised  at 

235 


Schween 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

$100  per  acre  on  the  entire  piece.     (The  Master:   $100  a  piece  you 
put  on  them.) 

239-L,  Hadsell  piece ;  100  acres  is  a  walnut  orchard ;  200  acres  is 
what  they  call  the  water  temple;  it  is  in  a  crop  of  alfalfa  this  year; 
good  strong  sediment  bottom;  east  of  that  road  leading  to  the  Ala- 
meda  Bridge,  what  they  call  the  Py's  Field,  100  acres  in  farming 
land;  150  acres  west  of  Sunol,  the  Sunol  picnic  grounds,  also  farming 

814  land;  about  6iy2  acres  in  creek  bottom,  and  about  1650  acres  in  the 
hills,  that  is  hill  farming  land;  the  bottom  land  could  be  used  for 
vegetable  purposes.  In  fact,  the  150  acres  west  of  Sunol  has  been  in 
corn  and  beans  for  a  number  of  years,  but  this  year  has  been  put  to 
a  crop  of  barley ;  at  the  water  temple  it  is  in  barley  this  year,  part  of 
it  in  alfalfa.  This  could  be  used  for  vegetable  purposes  as  well,  such 
as  corn,  squash,  etc.  They  have  been  raising  a  good  crop  this  year 
there,  and  I  have  put  an  average  for  the  whole  acreage  of  $155  an 
acre.  About  70  acres  is  in  alfalfa  now. 

Parcel  N-239 ;  764  acres,  nearly  all  farming  land ;  of  a  reddish 

8  nature;  is  located  east  of  the  Hadsell  property;  has  been  used  for  a 

long  term  of  years  for  agricultural  purposes,  such  as  hay  and  grain. 
A  very  good  crop  this  year;  in  fact,  every  year.     By  good  crop,  I 
would  say  for  summer-fallow,  all  the  way  from  3  to  4  tons  an  acre, 
and  winter-sown,  perhaps  1  ton  or  1  and  a  half. 
Questioned  by  Master. 

It  is  located  between  the  San  Antonio  and  Vallecitos  Road,  with 
reference  to  the  road  from  Calaveras  into  the  valley  of  Alameda 
Creek. 

DIRECT    EXAMINATION    BY    MR.    GREENE. 

0-239 ;  contains  about  300  acres  of  farm  land,  120  acres  of  pasture 
land.  A  small  portion  is  very  steep.  The  farm  land  could  be,  and  has 
been  put  to  both  hay  and  grain,  and  is  so  put  at  present. 

Parcel  244;  is  west  after  you  leave  the  Alameda  Creek  Bridge; 
g16  very  good  property ;  used  for  hay  and  grain  raising.  Nearly  all  level, 
but  there  is  a  small  portion  on  the  creek  right  opposite  the  house  that 
is  not  level,  and  with  the  exception  of  that  part,  it  is  agricultural  land. 
It  has  been  used  for  that  purpose  for  years.  I  think  a  vineyard  would 
do  well  there,  and  also  prunes,  almonds,  and  maybe  Bartlett  pears. 

Parcel  252;  another  small  parcel  of  the  Sunol  lands,  which  I 
valued  at  $100  for  the  entire  piece. 

Parcel  261 ;  at  one  time  had  a  very  good  orchard,  consisting  prin- 
cipally of  apples  and  potatoes,  but  of  late  years  has  been  used  for  agri- 
cultural purposes,  hay  and  such  like.  I  think  you  could  raise  an  ex- 
cellent crop  of  corn  there ;  also  potatoes,  garden  truck,  and  berries  also 
if  the  orchard  was  taken  out.  The  soil  in  the  portion  adjoining  the 
817  county  road  is  of  a  reddish  nature,  and  that  portion  toward  the  creek 
is  a  rich  sediment. 

Parcel  267 ;  is  bounded  by  the  Alameda  Creek  between  Sunol  and 

236 


Schween 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

Niles,  is  somewhat  steep  and  rough ;  parts  of  it  can  be  farmed.    Valued 
at  $70  per  acre. 

Parcel  268-a ;  is  a  far  better  piece  than  this  other  piece ;  is  not  as 
steep,  and  the  bulk  of  it  can  be  farmed  for  hay  and  grain,  and  I  think 
also  it  is  quite  well  adapted  for  vineyards,  the  same  as  parcel  244. 
Perhaps  we  could  use  half  or  a  little  more  than  half  of  this  parcel  for 
hay,  grain,  and  vineyard. 

268-B;  is  a  very  good  piece  of  land.  It  joins  the  Mission  Road, 
and  you  generally  see  good  crops;  has  been  used  for  hay  and  grain 
purposes ;  the  soil  in  the  bottom  adjoining  the  road  is  of  a  dark  black 
loam,  and  more  of  a  reddish  nature  as  you  go  up  toward  the  hill  land ; 
it  is  practically  open,  and  there  are  one  or  two  creeks.  All  of  it  could 
be  used  for  agricultural  purposes,  and  it  has  been  used  for  hay  and 
grain;  the  upper  lands,  I  think,  are  well  adapted  for  vineyard  pur- 
poses. Perhaps  you  could  raise  almonds  and  prunes  on  it  also. 

Parcel  290 ;  lies  west  of  the  Arroyo  De  Laguna,  and  slopes  up  to  818 
the  top  of  the  ridge ;  is  practically  open ;  has  been  used  of  late  years 
for  grazing  purposes,  and  perhaps  70  or  80  acres  is  still  farmed — used 
for  agricultural  purposes,  such  as  hay  and  grain,  but  perhaps  half 
of  that  land  could  be  used  for  agricultural  purposes.  It  has  been  used 
for  pasture  of  late  years;  it  is  good  for  home  sites  and  many  other 
things,  and  is  a  beautiful  spot.  The  class  of  homes  is  to  be  determined 
by  those  who  wish  to  have  homes  out  in  the  country.  There  are  many 
choice  spots  there  to  select  from,  and  you  could  get  a  good  price  for 
that  land  for  home  sites. 

Referring  to  what  are  known  as  the  Schween  lands,  and  the  other  819 
lands  of  the  company,  which  are  valued  by  me  at  an  amount  larger 
than  I  put  on  my  own  lands;  the  reason  why  I  have  done  that  is  that 
the  lands  formerly  owned  by  the  Schween  Co.,  and  perhaps  other  lands 
right  near  by  there,  have  always  been  used  for  grain  purposes,  and  I 
think  that  my  valuation  would  be  a  fair  valuation.  The  other  lands 
along  Road  2000,  and  what  they  call  the  Lilienthal  lands,  that  is  north 
of  the  Arroyo  Valle,  I  valued  higher,  because  they  have  been  used  for 
vegetables,  truck  gardening,  together  with  alfalfa.  They  also  could 
have  been  used  for  other  purposes,  such  as  grain  raising  and  hay. 
When  I  referred  to  our  lands  as  being  the  best  lands  there,  I  had  re- 
gard to  the  use  of  other  lands  for  grain  purposes,  and  I  forgot  to 
mention  that  alfalfa  will  also  grow  there.  They  can  be  used  for  both 
purposes. 

Map  13,  239-a ;  lies  on  the  slope  of  what  is  known  as  the  San  An-       820 
tonio  Creek.     Some  of  the  land  is  very  fine.    The  balance  is  grazing 
land,  quite  well  up  in  the  San  Antonio ;  there  may  be  small  parts  that 
are  brushy  and  a  little  steep,  but  nearly  all  is  good  and  open  grazing 
land. 

239-P;  more  open,  and  used  for  farming  purposes,  such  as  hay 
and  grain.  Two- thirds  of  it  can  well  be  farmed.  Some  of  the  soil  is 

237 


Schween 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

of  a  red  gravelly  nature,  and  some  is  what  is  called  mellow  adobe.  It 
is  very  fertile,  when  we  have  not  had  too  severe  a  winter,  and  it  is  not 
too  wet,  the  remaining  one-third  is  used  for  pasturage.  The  land  is 
not  so  very  steep,  and  is  good  grazing  land. 

239-Q;  the  character  of  both  the  low  land  and  the  upland  is 
practically  the  same  as  239-P,  and  is  susceptible  of  the  same  uses. 

239-R;  these  three  parcels  are  nearly  the  same.  I  divided  them 
the  same ;  practically  the  same  amount  of  farming  land,  and  the  same 

821  character  of  soil.    Some  may  have  a  little  more  gravel  running  along 
near  the  creek  than  others.    I  think  239-R  is  as  level  land  as  239-P 
and  239-Q.    There  is  very  little  gravel  in  the  streams  that  pass  through 
there. 

239-S;  more  pasture  land  than  the  other.  Some  good  farming 
land  also.  The  greater  portion  of  it  has  been  used  for  pasture  of  late 
years.  The  south  portion  is  somewhat  steeper  and  used  for  grazing 
purposes ;  the  north  portion  is  somewhat  steep  also,  and  the  bulk  of  it 
can  be  farmed.  The  land  near  the  creek  can  be  farmed,  and  I  think 
a  part  of  it  is  farmed  this  year.  The  land  produces  fairly  good  crops, 
being  fairly  good  grain  land.  I  could  not  tell  you  how  much  of  that 

822  iand  on  each  side  of  the  stream  is  reasonably  flat. 

239-T;  both  the  south  end  and  the  north  end,  especially  in  the 
south  end,  there  is  considerable  grazing  land.  It  is  somewhat  steep 
and  brushy  in  parts ;  quite  open  toward  the  center,  covered  with  quite 
large  oak  trees  in  through  there.  This  middle  portion  could  all  be 
farmed.  I  put  a  value  of  $32.50  on  239-T,  and  $27.50  on  239-S,  be- 
cause  I  think  there  is  more  land  in  the  former  that  could  be  farmed 
than  in  the  other.  There  is  more  flat  land,  although  it  is  somewhat 
rolling.  Quite  a  portion  of  the  soil  is  a  black  gravelly  soil,  which  I 
think  would  yield  pretty  well  if  it  was  farmed. 

239-U;  is  quite  rough,  nearly  all  used  for  grazing  purposes. 
Maybe  a  few  acres  here  and  there  that  could  be  used  for  agricultural 

823  purposes,  on  the  south  side.     On  the  side  that  is  rough,  the  land  is 
quite  steep. 

239-V ;  much  better  than  239-U  for  grazing  purposes.  Quite  open 
in  many  places,  and  has  some  steep  places.  A  portion  toward  the 
north  could  be  used  for  agricultural  purposes.  15  acres  or  so  could 
be  farmed. 

239-W;  most  of  it  rough.  Compares  favorably  with  239-U,  but 
is  better,  being  more  open,  and  I  think  is  better  grazing  land. 

239-X;  section  21.  The  San  Antonio  Creek  runs  through  this 
near  the  south-easterly  corner  and  near  the  center.  Quite  a  good  deal 
of  it  is  open.  Perhaps  20  to  40  acres  can  be  used  for  agricultural  pur- 
poses. It  is  better  than  U  and  W. 

239-Z ;  San  Antonio  Creek  runs  through  this  portion ;  some  level 
land  lying  near  the  creek  that  could  be  used  for  farming  or  agricul- 
tural purposes ;  the  balance  is  pasture. 

238 


Schween 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

Map  11,  4  pieces  in  parcel  225 ;  the  .0023  acres,  a  very  small  par-  824 
eel,  triangular  in  form,  lies  north  of  the  Southern  Pacific's  right  of 
way.  The  11.46  acres  is  east  of  Niles,  but  within  the  city  limits.  They 
are  building  lots,  and  there  are  houses  on  this  property  which  are 
rented  to  different  parties  living  in  Niles.  I  have  excluded  what- 
ever value  the  improvements  may  have  in  placing  my  values  on  these 
different  properties,  because  the  improvements  belong  to  the  tenants. 

Parcel  229 ;  is  a  square  piece  lying  on  the  hillside,  and  only  good 
for  residences.  It  is  on  the  county  road  running  from  Niles  to  Sunol ; 
consists  of  three-fifths  of  an  acre,  and  I  have  placed  a  valuation  of 
$300  on  the  entire  parcel. 

Parcel  237 ;  lies  on  northeast  side  of  creek,  and  along  the  hillside. 
Good  for  early  vegetables  which  I  have  seen  grow  there. 

239-A ;  53  acres,  excluding  lands  in  creek.  It  is  rough,  steep,  very 
small  amount  of  flat  land  in  it.  It  would  be  good  for  home  sites.  The 
entire  piece  valued  at  $750. 

239-B;  243  acres.     The  entire  piece  valued,  excluding  the  lands        825 
in  the  creek,  at  $3500. 

239-C;  105  acres,  appraised  at  $2000.  Can  be  used  for  home 
sites. 

239-D ;  14  acres,  appraised  at  $350.  Along  the  creek  is  practically 
the  same.  Rather  steep  and  brushy ;  beautiful  scenery. 

239-E;  20  acres,  appraised  at  $750.  That  property  is  the  same 
character  as  the  others. 

Map  15,  parcel  239-M;  contains  3314  acres,  with  some  very  ex- 
cellent farming  lands,  some  good  grazing  land,  and  some  steep  and 
rocky  land.  300  acres  farming  land  along  Alameda  Creek,  appraised 
at  $185  per  acre ;  200  acres  farming  land  along  the  San  Antonio,  or  at 
San  Antonio,  $70  per  acre ;  50  acres  along  the  San  Antonio  at  $75  per 
acre ;  100  acres  farming  land  mouth  of  creek  $110  per  acre ;  150  acres 
farming  land  on  top  of  the  hill  $65  per  acre;  150  acres  farming  land 
west  of  the  Apperson  Ranch,  $50  per  acre;  150  acres  farming  land 
top  of  hills  $30  per  acre ;  400  acres  creek  bottom,  $65  per  acre ;  1814 
acres  grazing  land,  $20  per  acre.  A  number  of  parcels  which  I  have  826 
designated  as  farming  land,  I  put  different  values  upon,  because  it 
depends  a  little  on  the  location;  also  on  the  character  of  the  soil.  I 
will  go  even  further  than  that;  the  300  acres  of  farming  land  along 
the  Alameda  Creek,  I  appraised  at  $185  because  it  is  well  adapted  to 
early  vegetables,  such  as  peas,  corn,  beans,  and  so  forth.  At  the  pres- 
ent time  it  has  been  in  grain  and  hay.  If  the  season  had  been  more 
favorable,  100  acres  or  so  might  have  been  planted  to  peas  last  year, 
but  owing  to  unfavorable  weather  and  rain,  it  was  impossible  to  plant 
them!  I  hardly  think  that  you  can  raise  more  than  one  crop  of  veg- 
etables per  annum  on  that  land.  It  is  like  all  the  lands  sloping  from 
Niles  toward  Hayward ;  they  generally  figure  on  one  crop  a  year.  The 
land  along  the  creek  is  not  sub-irrigated. 

239 


Schween 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

Parcel  250;  formerly  the  property  of  Crocker  and  Dillon;  con- 
tains 1448  acres,  and  lies  on  both  sides  of  Alameda  Creek ;  has  about 
150  acres  of  farming  land,  the  bulk  of  which  lies  on  the  north  side  of 

827  Alameda  Creek,  and  a  small  portion  on  the  south  and  southwest  side. 
The  balance  is  pasturage.    I  am  satisfied  that  will  raise  the  same  sort 
of  vegetables  as  the  land  just  referred  to. 

Parcel  264;  called  the  Harlan  place.  25  acres  of  farming  land; 
the  balance  grazing  land,  which  is  rather  steep. 

268-C ;  Bachman  place.  30  acres  of  this  land  is  excellent  farm- 
ing land ;  lies  on  the  bottom  before  you  get  to  the  rise  along  the  hill- 
side. 200  acres  of  good  rolling  farming  land ;  200  acres  of  good  graz- 
ing land ;  50  acres  of  brush  and  chaparral. 

268-D ;  lies  on  top  of  the  hills  west  of  Alameda  Creek.  About  150 
acres  could  be  farmed;  the  balance  is  pasture;  some  very  steep  and 
wooded. 

Parcel  285;  30  acres  of  this  is  farming  land;  65  acres  excellent 
pasture  land ;  balance  wooded  and  steep. 

Referring  to  the  Sunol  drainage  lands;  the  total  acreage  is  17,- 

828  372.95  acres;  rate  per  acre  $61.56;  total  value  $1,069,435.83.     This 
includes  maps  12,  13  and  15.    Those  17,000  odd  acres  could  be  sold, 
in  my  opinion,  for  $1,069,435.83.    In  reaching  my  values,  I  have  just 
considered  what  the  lands  were  worth  if  they  were  placed  on  the  mar- 
ket, and  have  not  considered  the  value  of  the  lands  as  a  portion  of 
the  properties  of  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Co. 

Questioned  by  Master. 

I  base  my  valuation  on  the  value  of  the  lands  for  sale  to  an  in- 
dividual, or  to  individuals. 

(Counsel  for  Defendant  is  advised  by  Master  that  he  understands 
clearly  that  his  objection  went  to  all  this  line  of  testimony,  on  the  same 
grounds  as  he  had  urged  as  to  others,  namely  that  it  was  a  special 
value.) 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY   MR.   GREENE. 

Introduction  of  table  headed  "Appraisal  Arroyo  Valle  Reservoir 
Areas,  Spring  Valley  Water  Company";  that  table  was  prepared  un- 
der my  direction,  and  the  acreages  in  the  fourth  column,  "Reservoir 
Acreages",  I  got  from  the  engineer.  Aside  from  that,  the  table  is  my 
own.  The  values  in  the  fifth  column,  "Per  Acre",  are  the  values 
which  I  placed  on  the  lands  in  my  direct  examination,  and  the  total 
value  is  the  multiplication  of  the  areas  by  those  values. 

Offered  and  received  in  evidence  as  "Plaintiff's  Exhibit  33". 

The  same  is  true  of  the  second  table,  the  San  Antonio  Reservoir 
site. 

Offered  and  received  in  evidence  as  "Plaintiff's  Exhibit  34". 

The  values  which  I  have  placed  in  each  of  these  tables  per  acre, 
correspond  with  the  value  which  I  placed  on  the  same  acreage  in  my 
valuation  of  the  entire  parcel. 

240 


Schween 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  STEINHART.  830 

What  I  have  taken  here  is  the  general  market  value,  and  means 
what  anybody  would  come  along  and  pay  the  owner.  It  did  not  make 
any  difference  to  me  who  it  was  that  was  buying  it.  831 

Map  14,  parcel  M-243;  part  of  it  can  be  farmed;  that  is,  part  of 
the  southeast  corner  and  also  on  the  northerly  boundary,  but  as  to 
how  much  of  it,  I  hardly  think  I  could  answer  that  question.  Part  of 
it  is  grazing  land.  The  portion  of  this  land  that  would  be  included 
in  the  reservoir  site  is  further  down  in  the  south-westerly  portion,  and 
I  think  there  is  a  small  portion  there  that  could  be  farmed,  but  I 
could  not  say  as  to  how  much  of  it  can  be  farmed.  As  near  as  I  can 
remember,  the  south-westerly  portion  is  the  better  part  of  the  land.  832 

(Counsel  for  Plaintiff  here  brought  out  the  fact  that  the  witness 
had  been  laboring  under  a  misapprehension,  and  really  meant  the 
south-easterly  corner,  and  not  the  south-westerly,  which  is  rough 
land.) 

The  south-westerly  portion  is  the  rough  portion,  and  is  lower 
than  the  south-easterly  portion,  but  the  south-easterly  portion  is  the 
better  portion  of  the  land.  The  south-easterly  portion  is  not  in  the 
reservoir.  The  lower  lands  are  in  the  reservoir  site.  The  northerly  833 
portion  of  this  (indicating  a  point  on  the  map)  is  the  highest,  and  the 
south-westerly  portion  is  the  lowest.  The  better  portion  would  be  the 
southeast  corner ;  a  very  small  portion  of  that  could  be  farmed,  and,  I 
think,  a  small  portion  of  the  northerly  part,  also. 

The  stock  that  I  ran  belonged  to  the  Pleasanton  Meat  Co.,  and  I 
was  interested  in  that  company,  but  I  did  not  run  any  stock  in  the 
Arroyo  del  Valle,  or  in  the  Mocho.  I  had  run  cattle  on  land  at  dif- 
ferent places  other  than  that  we  owned,  which  we  used  to  rent.  This 
generally  would  be  over  towards  the  Tassajero,  and  also  during  the 
summer  months  we  would  rent  land  near  Pleasanton.  The  land  in 
the  Tassajero  country  was  used  for  agricultural  purposes. 

Map  14,  parcels  243-A,  243-B  and  243-C ;  these  parcels  are  some-  834 
what  uniform  in  character,  but  I  think  my  valuations  differ  a  trifle. 
The  factors  of  difference:  the  upper  quarter  section,  that  80  acre 
piece  which  lies  north  on  top  of  the  hill,  is  good  open  country,  and 
good  grazing  land,  but  harder  to  get  at  than  some  of  the  other  lands 
along  the  Arroyo  del  Valle.  There  is  scarcely  any  difference  between 
243-B  and  243-C.  The  Arroyo  del  Valle  passes  through  both  of  these 
lands,  and  the  difference  of  $5  must  be  due  to  the  fact  that  the  smaller 
parcel  is  somewhat  steeper  than  the  other.  There  is  quite  a  little  steep 
brush  land  running  up  the  hillside  in  243-C.  I  trusted  a  great  deal  to  835 
memory  as  to  the  lay  of  the  land  in  the  Arroyo  del  Valle.  I  knew  this 
C-243  going  up  that  hillside.  There  was  more  brush,  and  one  being 
a  small  parcel  of  land,  while  the  other,  the  Arroyo  del  Valle  passes 
through  from  the  northwest  corner  to  the  southeast,  or  nearly  so,  and 

241 


Schween 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

being  good  open  land  on  both  sides,  I  thought  it  would  be  worth  a 
little  more  money  than  B-243.  The  fact  that  the  Arroyo  del  Valle 
passed  through  it  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  difference  in  valuation, 
but  I  thought  by  averaging  up  these  parcels  there  was  more  value  in 
B-243  than  C-243.  I  took  the  location  into  consideration ;  if  this  land 
was  sold  in  subdivisions,  we  could  get  more  for  243-C  than  you  could 
for  the  upper  piece,  because  it  is  much  harder  to  get  to  the  small  par- 
cel on  top  of  the  hill.  The  fact  that  these  lands  were  being  held  as  a 

836  whole,  did  not  make  any  particular  difference  in  my  value  of  them. 
I  took  the  sections,  or  part  of  the  sections,  into  consideration,  and 
simply  placed  a  value  on  them. 

Map  14,  243-1,  243-J  and  243-K ;  all  this  land  is  on  the  west  or 
southwest  slope  of  the  Arroyo  del  Valle,  •with  the  exception  that 
"J"  slopes  pretty  well  down  toward  the  Arroyo  del  Valle  Creek, 
quite  a  distance;  the  entire  three  quarter  sections  are  somewhat 
rough  and  brushy.  I  do  not  think  there  is  much  chaparral  on  1-243. 
There  is  other  brush  there  which  is  pretty  thick  in  places,  but  there 
are  open  places  on  the  three  parcels,  but  the  amount  of  open  spaces 
varies.  I  should  judge  it  would  perhaps  take  ten  acres  to  a  hoof  on 
these  three  quarter  sections.  I  think  that  400  acres  would  carry  40 

837  head  of  cattle  throughout  the  year.     My  valuation  is  just  about 
based  upon  the  idea  that  it  can  carry  that  amount  of  cattle.     J.  J. 
Moy  is  now  running  cattle  there. 

Map  16,  parcel  268-C;  30  acres  of  excellent  farming,  which  I 
have  segregated,  and  placed  a  total  value  on  of  $80  an  acre  on 
that  entire  parcel.  My  approximation  of  the  different  values  is :  30 
acres  at  $250  an  acre,  $7500 ;  200  acres  at  $150  an  acre,  $30,000 ;  200 
acres  at  $25  an  acre,  $5,000;  and  50  acres  of  this  brush  and  chap- 
arral at  $10  an  acre.  The  30  acres  are  south  of  the  land  owned  by 
Mr.  Andrade.  It  is  a  flat,  fertile  piece  of  land.  The  200  acres  is 
somewhat  rolling  hills ;  some  a  little  bit  steep,  but  can  be  farmed. 
Good  farming  land  of  an  adobe  nature.  The  200  acres  at  $25  per 
acre  is  quite  steep,  and  the  50  acres  at  $10  is  very  steep.  The  vege- 

838  tables  that  can  be  raised  on  the  lands  in  Pleasanton  consist  princi- 
pally of  potatoes,  onions,  corn,  some  beans,  peas,  in  fact  all  garden 
truck.    I  think  they  compare  favorably  with  the  vegetables  raised 
and  delivered  in  the  San  Francisco  market.     I  guess  they  are  as 
good,  because  they  ship  them,  whenever  they  have  large  quantities, 
to  San  Francisco. 

Map  10,  parcels  268-P  and  268-B;  I  do  not  know  what  the  com- 
pany paid  for  those  lands,  and  I  did  not  inquire. 

Map  11,  parcel  239-B;  it  was  rather  difficult  to  place  a  valua- 
tion on  the  lands  between  Sunol  and  Niles,  and  this  was  very  steep, 
and  I  had  been  on  it,  on  some  parts  of  it  I  might  say,  near  the  Ala- 
meda  Creek,  and  I  simply  took  this  particular  piece  from  a  scenic 
standpoint,  and  placed  a  valuation  on  it,  and  did  not  value  it  from 

242 


Schween 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

an  acreage  standpoint  at  all.     I  would  consider  it  most  beautiful 
scenery;  small  trees,  live  oaks,  and  other  varieties.    I  did  not  con-       839 
sider  it  from  an  agricultural  standpoint  at  all,  as  I  did  not  consider 
it  had  any  agricultural  use. 

Map  11,  parcel  237 ;  lies  on  northeast  side  of  creek,  and  along 
the  hillside,  and  is  only  good  for  early  vegetables.  It  is  quite  steep, 
but  that  is  what  you  want  for  early  vegetables.  One-half  or  maybe 
a  little  over  one-half,  is  in  vegetables  this  season. 

The  reason  for  my  difference  in  value  between  parcels  239-m, 
239-n,  239-o,  239-p,  valued  at  $450  an  acre,  and  239-e,  239-f,  239-g, 
and  239-h,  all  on  map  10,  valued  at  $500  an  acre,  is  that  there  is  a 
small  creek,  what  they  call  a  dry  creek,  running  through  there,  and 
of  course  this  can  only  be  used  for,  perhaps  a  little  hay.  It  would 
not  even  raise  grain.  That  is  why  I  valued  the  small  strip  where  840 
that  dry  creek  runs  through  at  $50  less. 

Map  15,  239-M ;  that  is  the  De  Saissett.  300  acres  farming  land 
along  the  Alameda  Creek ;  faces  toward  the  west,  which  can  be  used 
for  early  vegetables,  and  valued  at  $185  per  acre ;  the  other  200  acres 
are  farming  lands  along  the  San  Antonio,  some  being  north,  and 
some  south  of  the  creek,  I  placed  a  valuation  of  $70  an  acre  on.  Also 
50  acres  along  there  I  thought  a  little  better,  and  valued  at  $75  per 
acre ;  100  acres  farming  land  mouth  of  creek,  at  $110  per  acre ;  150 
acres  farming  land,  on  top  of  the  hill,  at  $65  per  acre;  150  acres  of 
farming  land  west  of  the  Apperson  place,  or  the  easterly  portion  of 
the  De  Saissett  ranch,  a  little  steep  in  parts  of  it,  very  good  farming 
land,  at  $50  an  acre.  The  soil  is  of  an  adobe  nature,  good  for  agri- 
cultural purposes,  but  hard  to  get  at.  Quite  a  climb  to  get  on  top 
of  the  hill.  That  is  why  I  valued  that  at  so  much  less  per  acre.  150 
acres  of  farming  land  on  top  of  the  hill,  at  $30  per  acre;  400  acres 
of  creek  bottom  at  $65  per  acre ;  and  1814  acres  pasture  land  at  $20 
an  acre.  I  made  this  segregation  the  first  time  I  went  over  the  841 
property  in  1913,  and  I  have  been  over  this  land  ever  since  that 
time.  I  did  not  compare  my  segregation  with  Mr.  Gale's.  He  went 
with  me,  as  a  rule,  but  always  took  his  course,  and  I  took  mine. 
We  talked  in  regard  to  the  acreage,  and  perhaps  we  might  have  the 
same. 

Questioned  by  Master. 

I  do  not  know  anything  about  Mr.  Gale's  values. 

CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  STEINHART. 

The  creek  bottom  there  is  farming  land.  There  are  about  400 
acres  of  creek  bottom  which  I  valued  at  $65  per  acre.  There  is 
quite  a'warm  belt  along  there,  and  I  have  noticed  the  condition  of  the 
sycamore  trees,  which  is  due,  perhaps,  to  the  season.  The  foliage 
may  start,  the  frost  nip  it,  or  there  may  be  some  kind  of  a  blight  like  842 
we  had  this  year.  You  will  find  it  all  over  the  country  where  you 

243 


Schween 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

go,  on  the  sycamore  trees,  but  last  year  it  went  a  little  further,  and 
there  seemed  to  be  a  blight  on  the  live  oak  trees. 

Questioned  by  Master. 

That  blasted  appearance  of  the  sycamore  trees  is  due  to  late 
frosts,  but  we  had  no  late  frosts  this  year. 

CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  STEINHART. 

This  year  it  was  simply  a  blight.  There  might  have  been  snow 
in  the  San  Antonio  Valley  as  late  as  May  this  year,  for  half  an  hour 
or  an  hour,  but  we  had  absolutely  no  frost  since  April,  that  I 
know  of. 

In  valuing  the  parcels  in  map  11,  I  deducted  a  portion  of  the 
land  along  the  bed  of  the  stream  of  my  own  accord,  because  I  am 
not  an  expert  in  appraising  rights  of  way,  or  anything  of  that  char- 

843  acter.    I  did  not  deduct  the  stream  bed  of  the  Arroyo  Valle,  as  the 
stream  bed  does  not  amount  to  anything.    The  water  is  confined  to 
a  very  narrow  channel  in  most  places.    It  is  somewhat  similar  along 
the  Niles  Canyon,  but  in  the  Niles  Canyon,  where  the  stream  runs, 
it  is  absolutely  bare,  but  up  the  other  creek,  here  is  a  little  island, 
and  there  is  a  little  island,  and  the  stream  runs  on  each  side  and  so 
on;  you  cannot  make  any  reduction  for  the  land  that  is  used  by  the 
stream.     In  some  places  the  islands  in  the  Arroyo  Valle  are  quite 
large.    I  would  say  in  section  19,  map  14,  for  instance.    There  may 
be  other  places,  but  I  never  paid  any  particular  attention  to  it.     I 
think  that  is  the  only  reason  that  I  included  it. 

I  did  not  exclude  the  San  Antonio  Creek.  There  are  no  islands 
in  that,  but  the  water  is  confined  to  a  very  narrow  channel.  I  have 

844  admitted  that  the  water  is  confined  to  a  very  narrow  channel,  but 
there  is  a  railroad  track  on  either  side  of  the  Niles  Canyon,  and  I 
did  not  want  to  put  any  valuation  on  the  creek  bed  through  there 
because  I  am  not  familiar  with  that. 

Questioned  by  Master. 

I  included  the  creek  bed  in  the  De  Saissett  place,  because  there 
is  a  great  portion  of  that  land  in  the  creek  bottom,  and  that  land  is 
worth  considerable  for  grazing  purposes  alone.  If  I  were  buying 
the  Hadsell  piece,  or  this  piece  here  years  ago,  and  they  had  the 
same  acreage,  I  would  try  to  cut  out  altogether,  and  not  buy  it,  the 
amount  of  acreage  in  the  creek,  as  I  hardly  think  it  would  have  been 
of  any  use  to  me. 

CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  STEINHART. 

845  I  would  get  my  water  for  the  stock  from  the  springs  that  are 
throughout  all  of  that  land.     I  did  not  include  the  springs  in  the 
value  of  the  land.     To  get  water  for  grazing  purposes  you  could 
bore  wells  or  improve  where  there  are  springs,  or  at  least  indica- 
tions of  springs,  and  if  you  try  to  develop  them  you  will  certainly 

244 


Schween 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

get  water.  I  did  include  the  water  because  it  is  on  the  land.  On 
the  Arroyo  Valle,  on  the  steep  land,  I  think  in  all  those  places  where 
they  are  steep  there  is  water  from  springs.  I  did  consider  the  pres- 
ence of  that  spring  water  there.  In  nearly  all  the  pasture  lands  846 
there  were  springs.  I  took  that  for  granted,  and  took  it  into  consid- 
eration in  giving  my  valuation. 

Map  14,  parcels  243-1,  243-J,  and  243-K;  I  am  not  positive 
whether  there  are  any  springs  there  or  not.  I  made  no  examina- 
tion when  I  went  over  these  lands  in  regards  to  the  water,  because 
a  person  naturally  would  think  there  was  water  there.  If  I  wanted  847 
to  buy  it,  I  certainly  would  go  over  the  land  more  carefully,  and 
any  buyer  would  do  that,  and  see  whether  or  not  there  was  water 
there.  I  was  not  positive  whether  there  was  water  there  or  not,  but 
going  over  this  land,  I  found  water  in  all  the  gulches  from  time  to 
time,  and  there  are  springs  throughout  this  entire  country.  The 
water  in  the  gulch  generally  comes  from  the  springs;  some  times 
you  find  a  spring  right  on  top  of  the  hill.  When  I  refer  to  these 
gulches,  I  do  not  at  all  times  refer  to  the  water  flowing  at  the  bot- 
tom of  the  gulches  in  order  to  know  that  there  is  water  there,  be- 
cause there  are  one  hundred  and  one  places  maybe  throughout  here 
where  you  may  see  a  spring  right  on  top  of  the  hill,  it  being  a  little 
developed,  or  properly  developed,  and  they  have  watering  troughs  848 
there;  you  will  find  them  all  over  these  hill  lands. 

I  could  not  say  positively  how  many  head  of  cattle  Mr.  Moy 
is  running  now  to  the  acre.  Last  Fall  he  told  me  he  had  163  head, 
but  he  has  told  me  since  that  during  the  Winter  he  has  bought  more. 
I  do  not  know  how  many  head  of  cattle  anybody  is  running  in 
Arroyo  Valle  to  the  acre.  I  could  not  say  when  I  first  conceived  the 
notion  of  not  valuing  the  creek  bed  at  Niles.  I  did  not  have  any  con- 
versation with  anybody  when  I  was  told  to  appraise  it.  The  only  one 
I  did  speak  to  was  Mr.  Gale. 

The  lands  valued  on  map  10  are  all  used  for  the  purposes  desig- 
nated at  the  present  time,  namely,  alfalfa,  vegetables,  etc.  That  was 
correct  in  1913,  1912,  and  1911. 

The  land  that  Mr.  Heath  was  using  for  dairy  purposes  was  849 
land  included  in  the  Pleasanton  district,  and  I  know,  as  a  matter 
of  fact,  he  is  feeding  all  of  that  cattle  from  crops  grown  upon  his 
place,  with  the  exception  of  a  few  dry  stock  which  he  some  times 
gets  a  hill  pasture  for.  He  grows  nearly  all  of  his  alfalfa  on  his 
own  place — last  year  he  bought  a  few  hundred  tons,  and  he  told 
me  this  year  that  he  thought  he  would  raise  enough  for  his  own 
use.  He  has  bought  some  feed  up  to  the  present  time,  for  the  reason 
that  last  year  he  seeded  about  300  acres  of  alfalfa,  and  of  course  he 
would  not  expect  to  get  much  the  first  year.  Judging  by  the  banks 
of  the  creek,  alfalfa  roots  must  go  down  about  10  or  12  feet,  and 
they  get  moisture  there,  as  much  as  they  need. 

245 


Schween 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

850  Parcel  275  is  farmed.    It  is  an  entire  piece  in  alfalfa.    I  am  not 
familiar  with  the  price  that  the  Spring  Valley  paid  for  it.    The  fact 
that  Spring  Valley  might  have  paid  $305  for  that  land  does  not 
affect  my  value  of  $450.    That  matter  is  up  to  the  Spring  Valley.    If 
they  could  buy  it  at  that,  well  and  good,  but  the  land  is  worth  more 
money  in  my  judgment.    The  land  belonged  to  a  man  named  Callen, 
who  was  a  section  boss  for  the  Southern  Pacific.    He  resided  some- 
where out  in  Contra  Costa  County  at  the  time.    He  did  not  reside 
on  the  land. 

Parcel  276,  map  10,  has  not  been  subdivided,  but  it  could  be. 
There  is  some  alkali  in  spots  in  parcel  279.  The  factors  of  difference 
in  value  between  parcel  274  and  the  neighboring  piece,  is  that  274 
is  a  trifle  higher,  and  there  is  less  alkali,  or  scarcely  any  alkali  that 
I  know  of  in  that  piece.  The  only  piece  that  I  referred  to,  when  I 

851  said  that  I  preferred  to  leave  out  the  creek  bottom,  was  the  land  be- 
tween Sunol  and  Niles,  and  speaking  truthfully  in  regard  to  that,  I 
really  did  not  know  the  value  of  it,  because  I  did  not  know  whether 
there  was  much  gravel  in  that  creek  or  not,  and  I  simply  did  not 
want  to  place  a  value  on  the  creek  lands  between  Sunol  and  Niles. 
I  answered  the  Judge's  question  in  regard  to  this  De  Saissett  prop- 
erty, when  he  asked  me  if  I  preferred  to  leave  out  that  400  acres  of 
creek  bottom,  and  I  said  yes,  if  I  could  buy  the  rest  without  it.    I 
have  many  reasons  for  saying  that,  for  pasturage  purposes,   one 
reason  is  this:   if  you  want  to  have  it  enclosed — the  creek  bottom — 
how  could  you  do  it  during  the  Winter  months?     How  could  you 
keep  any  stock  there  ?    You  could  not  keep  them  there  in  the  Spring 
until  just  about  now,  because  you  could  not  put  any  fences  up. 

852  The  water  would  wash  the  fences  away.    I  did  not  mean  to  apply 
that  to  all  the  lands  in  general. 

Questioned  by  Master. 

If  it  were  in  the  San  Antonio  Valley,  for  instance,  I  would  cer- 
tainly take  the  creek,  because  there  is  no  danger  of  breaking  the 
fences  down  there.  You  could  put  them  up  and  they  would  be 
there  forevermore,  but  there  is  a  large  distance  across  it  in  this 
portion,  and  there  are  lots  of  fences  to  build,  and  that  is  why  I 
answered  your  question  that  way. 

CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  STEINHART. 

I  would  prefer  the  portion  in  San  Antonio  Valley  for  pasturing, 
because  I  can  put  my  fences  there,  and  they  would  remain.  In  my 
valuation,  I  have  considered  land  with  water  on  it  to  some  extent.  I 
do  not  think  I  spoke  of  parcel  271  as  being  rented  for  $20  an  acre.  I 

853  referred  to  the  lands  formerly  owned  by  the  Schween  Company,  half- 
way between  Pleasanton  and  Santa  Rita.    There  is  a  strip  joining  the 
county  road,  35  acres.    At  the  present  time  it  is  leased  to  Mr.  Christian. 
His  lease  is  for  one  year.    He  uses  it  just  for  pasturage.    Natural  grass 

246 


Schween 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

grows  there.  He  has  been  running  in  the  neighborhood  of,  I  should 
judge,  an  average  of  about  30  head  since  last  Fall.  He  has  29  acres. 
There  is  a  small  portion  in  potatoes.  Somebody  else  has  the  six  acres 
leased  for  potatoes. 

Parcel  282  was  cultivated  by  Mr.  J.  M.  DeFreitas.  I  did  not  say 
that  it  had  been  used  for  hay  and  grain  only,  because  they  raise  vege- 
tables there  also.  The  property  will  average  year  after  year  30  to  854 
35  sacks.  It  has  been  averaging  that  for  15  or  20  years.  The  owner 
before  Mr.  De  Freitas  was  a  party  from  Livermore.  I  forget  the 
name.  They  bought  it  for  vegetable  purposes.  I  did  not  keep 
records  on  my  own  land  for  any  year  other  than  1910.  I  think  I 
could  refer  back  to  the  record  for  1909.  I  will  get  it  for  you  if  I 
can.  Of  course,  all  that  I  can  refer  back  to  are  my  books  for  the 
total  yield.  I  won't  say  positively  that  I  can  do  it  or  not,  but  I 
will  consult  my  brother.  Perhaps  he  can  give  me  some  information. 
We  have  been  farming  the  place  since  I  have  been  able  to  walk. 
The  piece  I  testified  to  this  morning,  near  the  county  road  leading 
from  Pleasanton  to  Santa  Rita,  I  am  not  able  to  get  the  records  for  855 
the  previous  years  on  that,  because  we  generally  put  all  the  different 
parcels  together,  and  we  never  figured  one  parcel  by  itself,  when 
we  are  harvesting  our  crop.  This  field  may  go  40  sacks,  another 
25  or  30,  or  even  as  high  as  45  sacks  an  acre.  They  run  somewhat 
uniform  throughout,  but  you  are  not  raising  the  same  kind  of  a 
crop.  You  may  be  raising  Chevalier  barley  in  one  field,  and  common 
in  the  next ;  oats  in  another  one,  and  wheat  still  in  another  field ; 
and  perhaps  still  in  another  field  adjoining  that  you  may  cut  the 
crop  for  hay. 

In  parcel  283,  of  143  acres,  I  do  not  think  that  I  can  get  the 
figures  for  the  previous  years,  but  I  have  taken  this  for  one  year, 
because  I  cut  the  crop,  or  rather,  harvested  it  myself.  We  have  our 
books  in  this  way:  We  put  everything  together.  The  reason  I  can 
recollect  it  so  well,  is  because  all  this  grain  and  straw  was  sold  out 
in  the  field.  It  was  not  hauled  out  at  all.  As  a  rule  you  haul 
your  grain  and  stuff  to  the  warehouse  where  it  is  either  sold  or 
stored.  It  is  not  customary  to  sell  it  always  in  the  same  way  from 
the  field ;  some  times  you  store  your  barley ;  some  times  you  store  it  856 
two  years  before  you  sell  it.  The  storage  and  the  insurance  increase 
the  expense. 

In  reference  to  the  long  strip  running  from  Sunol  to  Niles, 
included  in  map  11,  I  spoke  to  Mr.  Gale,  and  he  said  "What  are  you 
going  to  do  about  this"?  and  I  said  "I  am  going  to  do  absolutely 
nothing,  because  I  don't  know  how  to  get  at  it".  Mr.  Olney  spoke 
'to  me  about  it  one  afternoon  in  the  office,  and  he  said  "You  can 
leave  it  out." 


247 


Schween 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

FIFTEENTH  HEARING.  AUGUST  3,  1915. 

Witnesses:  C.  H.  SCHWEEN, 
W.  J.  MORTIMER, 
W.  S.  CLAYTON. 

857  CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.   STEINHART. 

In  valuing  this  land  along  the  Alameda  Creek,  I  did  not  leave 
out  any  land  additional  to  that  included  in  the  creek  bottom,  but 
perhaps  I  included  some  of  the  lands  near  the  creek  bottom;  there 

858  is  a  road  leading  along  there.    Referring  to  the  creek  bottom  in  Ala- 
meda Creek,  below  Sunol,  I  figured  along  the  road  leading  up  toward 
Calaveras  Creek,  and  west  of  that  road  I  considered  creek  bottom.    I 
am  now  talking  about  land  near  Sunol.    In  other  words,  southeast  of 

859  Sunol  along  Alameda  Creek.    There  are  several  pieces  that  I  excluded 
southeast  of  Niles  going  towards  Sunol.    Pieces  263,  224  and  225  on 
map  11;  I  gave  no  valuation  whatsoever  to  those  lands.    In  valuing 
other  lands  along  the  Alameda  Creek,  I  excluded  portions  of  the  creek 
bottom  on  parcels  239-A,  239-B,  239-C,  239-D,  and  239-E  on  map  11. 
I  do  not  think  that  I  excluded  anything  more  than  the  creek  bottom 

860  in  those  parcels.    I  got  my  acreage  from  Mr.  Olney,  and  in  my  opinion 
the  acreage  that  I  valued  excluded  only  the  creek  bottom,  and  I  feel 
that  I  am  perfectly  qualified  to  value  the  land  along  the  side  of  the 
creek. 

That  portion  of  the  Schween  Ranch  that  was  seeded  to  oats,  pro- 
duced in  1910,  44  bags  of  oats  to  the  acre.  That  is  a  usual  crop,  and 
we  have  had  five  running  crops  like  that.  Some  of  our  neighbors  have 
also  had  crops  like  that,  but  I  do  not  think  that  is  a  usual  crop 
throughout  the  Livermore  Valley,  unless  you  included  Pleasanton  in 
that  valley.  To  a  great  extent  it  is  a  usual  crop  through  the  Pleas- 
anton Valley.  I  am  not  familiar  with  the  usual  yield  throughout 

861  the  state,  nor  throughout  the  Livermore  Valley,  except  a  portion  on 
the  west  side  of  the  Livermore  Valley.     I  am  familiar  with  just  a 
small  portion  of  the  yield  to  the  west  of  Livermore  Valley,  on  the 
land  that  my  brother-in-law  and  my  uncle  owned,  and  that  is  the 
only  land  the  yield  of  which  I  am  familiar  with. 

Counsel  for  Defendant  read  the  following  figures  as  presented 
in  a  pamphlet  published  by  the  University  of  California,  Circular 
No.  121,  entitled  "Some  Things  the  Prospective  Settler  Should 
Know,  by  Forsyth  Hunt,  and  other  members  of  the  Staff",  giving 
the  average  probable  and  possible  yields  for  different  products  in 
the  State  of  California.  Counsel  asked  the  witness  whether  or  not 
he  agreed  with  these  figures,  which  were  as  follows : 

Q.  In  so  far  as  oats  are  concerned — the  average  yield  per  acre 
is  10  sacks.  In  your  experience,  is  that  correct  or  not  correct ;  A.  I 
think  that  must  be  correct. 

248 


Schween 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

Q.  A  safe  estimate  for  business  purposes  as  to  oats  per  acre  is 
15  sacks  per  acre :  In  your  opinion  is  that  correct  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.    A  good  yield  which  competent  men  may  hope  to  obtain  is       862 
20  sacks  an  acre.     Is  that,  in  your  opinion,  correct?     A.     That  is 
right. 

Q.  A  yield  not  infrequently  obtained,  under  favorable  condi- 
tions is  30  sacks  an  acre.  In  your  opinion  is  that  correct?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  Possible  but  extraordinary  yield  is  40  sacks  an  acre.  Now, 
do  you  consider  that  a  possible  but  extraordinary  yield  ?  A.  No ;  it 
is  neither  possible  nor  extraordinary,  because  I  have  seen  better;  I 
have  seen  more. 

My  crop,  which  runs  an  even  four  sacks  to  the  acre,  higher 
than  the  highest  possible  and  extraordinary  yield  they  give,  has 
done  that  for  five  successive  years.  My  books,  perhaps,  would  not 
show  that,  but  may  show  the  total  amount  of  money  that  we  have 
gotten  for  our  crop  for  the  season;  maybe  I  could  produce  that.  I 
would  like  to  refer  back;  I  know  on  one  particular  piece  of  100 
acres,  what  you  call  the  brickyard  piece,  they  had  165  bags  of  barley 
to  the  acre  average ;  that  was  an  average  for  the  five  years,  or  31 
sacks  per  acre  per  year.  It  is  not  a  fact  at  all  times  that  barley 
runs  more  sacks  to  the  acre  than  oats,  and  therefore  that  31  sacks 
of  barley  to  the  acre  is  not  at  all  extraordinary. 

Counsel  for  Plaintiff  here  interposed  that  if  Counsel  is  refer-        863 
ring  to  the  yield  on  irrigated  land,  and  under  favorable  conditions,        864 
that  in  fairness  to  the  witness,  he  should  tell  him  so.    It  is  Counsel's 
opinion  that  in  excess  of  40  sacks  of  barley  to  the  acre  is  an  ex- 
traordinary yield  on  irrigated  land. 

Counsel  for  Defendant  states  his  own  witness  advises  him  that 
that  is  not  an  extraordinary  yield  for  those  things,  and  that  this  is 
on  all  land,  and  that  the  pamphlet  used  refers  to  ordinary  yield 
throughout  the  State  of  California. 

Last  year  we  sold  our  oats  for  $1.55,  and  a  little  later  it  went 
up  to  $1.80.  The  price  is  about  2  cts.  per  Ib.  on  oats  for  seed,  and 
when  we  sold  this  oats  of  ours  for  $2.25,  we  sold  it  to  different  par- 
ties that  came  out  to  the  field  and  got  it,  but  we  thought  that  $2.25 
a  cental  was  a  little  high,  so  we  gave  it  to  those  that  came  out  for  2 
cents,  but  I  think  that  the  sacks  weighed  107,  which  made  it  $2.14 
per  sack ;  but  we  could  have  gotten  $2.25  a  cental.  What  we  got  will 
average  that,  because  it  is  very  heavy  oats,  and  in  my  statement 
yesterday,  I  said  that  the  gross  income  of  that  land  was  equal  to 
$100  per  acre,  as  near  as  I  remember;  it  will  exceed  that  a  little 
bit  if  you  will  figure  it  up  very  closely.  Straw  is  not  worth  as  much  865 
as  65  cents  per  bale  right  now,  but  at  the  time  we  obtained  65  cents 
for  it,  it  was  worth  that  much;  the  market  is  fluctuating.  65  cents 
is  not  the  usual  price  per  bale  for  straw.  We  sometimes  sell  it  at  $1 
a  bale,  and  sometimes  for  less,  perhaps  as  low  as  35  cents  per  bale. 

249 


Schween 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

The  weight  of  our  wheat  per  bag  was  152  Ibs.  average,  with 
28  bags  to  the  acre.  I  think  that  six  and  a  half  sacks  per  acre, 
(figure  as  given  in  publication  before  referred  to),  is  correct  as  an 
average  throughout  the  state. 

Q.  A  safe  estimate  for  business  purposes  is  10  sacks  per  acre ; 
is  that  about  right?  A.  I  guess  so. 

Q.  A  good  yield  which  competent  men  may  hope  to  obtain  is 
about  12l/2  sacks  per  acre?  A.  A  pretty  good  crop. 

Q.  A  yield  not  infrequently  obtained  under  favorable  condi- 
tions is  20  sacks  per  acre :  Is  that  about  right  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.    And  a  possible  but  extraordinary  yield  is  25  sacks  to  the 

866  acre  ? 

(Discussion  between  Counsel  as  to  whether  this  means  on  irri- 
gated or  non-irrigated  land.) 

Q.  Now,  I  notice  you  run  three  sacks  higher.  How  often  did 
you  do  that?  A.  You  see,  Mr.  Steinhart,  we  are  not  in  the  habit 
of  raising  wheat  on  that  land ;  it  is  just  by  chance  that  we  will  try  a 
little  piece  of  wheat  in  order  to  get  the  seed  for  some  of  our  other 
farm  lands — we  get  clean  seed ;  and  also  once  in  a  great  while  we 
change  the  crop,  not  always  have  barley;  we  will  run  barley  as 
high  as  7  or  8  years  in  succession,  and  then  we  will  change  it  to  a 
crop  of  wheat  or  oats. 

Q.  How  often  do  you  grow  wheat  there?  A.  Perhaps  nearly 
every  season  or  every  other  season  we  raise  a  small  piece  of  wheat, 
just  enough  to  get  the  seed.  I  hardly  think  that  it  always  ran  this 
crop  of  28  bags  to  the  acre.  I  know  that  on  several  occasions  it  ran 
over  20  bags,  how  much  I  could  not  say. 

867  It  seems  to  me  that  along  about  February,  1915,  there  were  two 
gentlemen  at  my  house  in  regard  to  rights  of  way.     One  of  the 
rights  of  way  runs  parallel  with  the  Southern  Pacific,  and  the  other 
runs  triangularly  through  one  of  the  fields  of  our  land.    My  recollec- 
tion of  my  talk  with  these  gentlemen  was  that  we  started  at  Niles, 
and  went  as  far  as  Tracy,  and  were  simply  speaking  about  rights 
of  way ;  I  do  not  remember  anything  in  regard  to  the  value  of  the 
land  surrounding  Pleasanton.     That  valuation  was  a  valuation  of 
the  Western  Pacific  right  of  way,  which  does  not  go  through,  but 
runs  along  the  southerly  line  of  my  land  parallel  with  the  Southern 
Pacific.    I  am  not  positive  that  I  gave  them  a  valuation  of  the  land 
formerly  owned  by  me,  but  I  did  tell  them  that  the  lands  above  us 
were  worth  much  less  per  acre  than  our  lands  that  we  owned  at 

868  that  time.    I  am  positive  that  I  did  not  give  them  a  valuation  on  the 
lands  formerly  owned  by  us.    I  am  positive  that  we  did  not  discuss 
the  lands,  other  than  the  right  of  way  land.    They  may  have  asked 
me  the  value  of  neighboring  lands  along  the  right  of  way,  but  I 
do  not  think  I  gave  them  the  figure.    I  am  positive  I  gave  them  no 

869  figure  whatever. 

250 


Schween 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

Q.  You  are  positive  you  gave  them  no  figure  whatsoever? 
A.  Yes. 

Mr.  Greene:  Just  for  my  own  information,  will  you  tell  me 
which  right  of  way  this  is  you  are  referring  to? 

Mr.  Steinhart :  The  Western  Pacific  right  of  way.  I  will  state 
very  frankly,  I  do  not  want  any  misunderstanding  about  this,  Mr. 
Schween  gave  a  figure.  This  is  my  statement — Mr.  Schween  gave  a 
figure ;  I  asked  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commission  to  give  me 
those  figures,  and  they  said  to  me,  they  telegraphed  East  and  said 
they  could  not  voluntarily  release  those  figures,  so  it  will  be  neces- 
sary for  me  to  subpoena  the  men.  The  only  other  source  of  infor- 
mation I  have  is  Mr.  McDonald,  in  our  employ,  who  was  present, 
but  he  states  he  will  not  give  me  that  figure  unless  the  Western 
Pacific  tells  him  he  can;  he  spoke  to  Mr.  White,  and  Mr.  White 
said  if  Mr.  Olney  would  let  him  give  those  figures,  he  would  give 
them.  Now,  then,  I  have  been  rather  diffident  about  asking  Mr. 
Olney  to  give  Mr.  McDonald  permission  to  give  me  those  figures. 

Mr.  Greene :  I  should  like  to  have  this  land  exactly  placed,  if  you 
can  do  it,  from  map  10.  Can  we  do  that? 

Mr.  Steinhart:  Mr.  Schween  gave  a  valuation  of  the  lands  for- 
merly owned  by  him  and  of  lands  through  which  the  Western 
Pacific  runs  on  Map  10;  he  also  gave  a  valuation  as  to  the  other 
lands;  but  very  frankly,  I  am  going  to  ask  Mr.  Olney  for  permis- 
sion to  use  those  figures. 

DIRECT    EXAMINATION    BY    MR.    GREENE, 

The  Western  Pacific  right  of  way,  on  that  map,  runs  parallel 
to  the  Southern  Pacific. 

CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  STEINHART.  870 

I  am  quite  positive  that  I  did  not  give  a  figure. 

Parcel  288,  Chabot  lands ;  during  the  past  two  seasons  there  has 
been  water  on  them  for  a  period  of  maybe  a  few  days  or  a  week  at 
a  time,  but  after  that  the  water  has  all  drained  off;  but  two  of  the 
years,  1912  and  1913,  there  was  absolutely  no  water  on  them. 

The  Winter  sown  crop,  referring  to  the  Hadsell  piece,  runs  on 
an  average  about  one  to  one  ton  and  a  half  per  year,  and  that  is 
the  uniform  crop  through  the  San  Antone  Valley.  During  1914, 
those  that  had  summer -fallow  wheat  hay,  averaged  4  tons  per  acre. 
The  red  oat  hay  will  hardly  average  that  high,  but  the  wheat  hay 
will,  and  in  many  instances  that  is  the  usual  summer-fallow  crop  for 
the  wheat  hay.  Their  main  object  in  summer-fallowing  in  the  San  871 
Antone  Valley  is  to  prepare  the  land  in  Spring  for  early  seeding  in 
the  Fall  of  the  year. 

251 


Schween 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

Map  15,  parcel  239-M;  the  creek  bottom  I  valued  for  gravel 
purposes,  and  for  good  Spring  pasture ;  it  grows  an  abundance  of 
feed.  I  valued  it  at  $65  an  acre  both  for  Spring  pasturage,  and 
gravel  purposes.  I  do  not  know  that  that  land  is  not  fit  for  gravel 
purposes,  owing  to  the  presence  of  the  great  quantity  of  shale. 

There  have  not  been  so  very  many  tenants  pasturing  in  the 
Arroyo  del  Valle  during  the  last  six  years.  During  my  time  there 
has  been  one  other  tenant  before  Mr.  Moy,  who  had  pasture  land,  and 
his  name  is  Beauchamp. 

872  I  have  been  in  the  employ  of  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Co. 
nearly  three  years.     I  do  not  think  that  you  have  ever  asked  me 
what  Moy  paid  for  his  land.    When  Beauchamp  was  unable  to  pay 
the  rent,  the  company  took  the  fencing,  watering  trough,  some  hay 
and  such  things,  as  part  payment,  and  all  that  was  sold  to  Mr.  Moy. 
He  took  that,  and  he  bought  that  from  the  company,  which  later 
became  of  the  property  of  the  Spring  Valley ;  these  fences,  as  well  as 
wires  and  posts,  etc.,  at  the  rental  of  $850  per  year.    Besides  what 
he  paid  for  that,  it  seems  to  me  he  paid  in  addition  $325,  and  I  think 
he  has  a  three  years'  lease  on  between  4,000  and  4,400  acres. 

I  do  not  know  positively  what  Heath  pays,  because,  for  a  por- 
tion of  this  land  (Lilienthal  land),  for  the  first  year  he  paid  $12 

873  per  acre,  and  after  that  $20  per  acre.    It  may  have  been  $12  for  the 
first  three  years,  and  $20  for  the  next  seven,  I  won't  say.    That  is 
for  about  300  acres. 

Map  12,  parcel  228 ;  the  bulk  of  it  is  somewhat  steep,  with  some 
level  spots  in  it.  Part  of  the  east  end  of  it  could  be  cultivated,  and 
also  on  top,  which  is  accessible.  We  generally  get  into  that  piece 
from  what  they  call  the  Mission  Road,  which  is  in  the  neighborhood 
of  a  mile,  or  a  mile  and  a  quarter  from  it. 

874  Map  12,  parcel  290 ;  I  think  the  northeast  portion  of  that  could 
be  cultivated.    There  is  quite  a  flat  in  there,  and  along  the  Arroyo 
de  Laguna  there  is  a  lot  of  flat  land ;  also  the  rolling  hills  slope  from 
the  west  to  northwest.    Some  years  ago,  I  should  judge  half  of  the 
entire  parcel  was  under  cultivation  at  one  time,  and  that  is  the 
portion  that  I  speak  of  along  the  Laguna  Creek  to  Bonita.    I  have 
placed  my  valuation  on  that  from  an  agricultural  standpoint,  and 
I  think  I  placed  a  valuation  on  the  half  that  is  capable  of  cultiva- 
tion of  about  $350  or  $400  per  acre.    Some  of  this  land  is  east  of 
the  Arroyo  de  Laguna.     There  is  quite  a  strip  along  there,  and  I 

875  included  all  the  flat  land,  and  I  guess  I  included  the  creek  bottom. 
I  placed  a  value  of  $50  or  $60  on  the  portion  that  is  not  cultivatable. 
I  could  not  say  positively  as  to  that.     I  valued  that  for  grazing 
purposes,  and  home  sites.    Have  had  no  experience  whatever  in  the 
selling  of  home  site  lands. 

Map  13,  parcel  239-W;  can  be  used  for  grazing  purposes,  and 
I  am  almost  postive  that  there  are  springs  on  it. 

252 


Schween 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

Map  13,  239-X;  can  be  used  for  agricultural  purposes;  small 
portions  that  you  could  perhaps  farm.  Practically  about  the  same 
land  as  in  239-W. 

239-V ;  is  a  little  better  land,  a  part  of  it,  than  the  other.  There 
is  water  there.  The  San  Antonio  runs  through  it,  and  there  are 
some  springs. 

Map  14,  243-R;  quite  steep,  the  most  of  it;  used  principally  876 
for  grazing  purposes ;  a  very  little  that  you  could  raise  hay  on.  The 
southwest  quarter  has  quite  a  gulch  running  through  it.  Along  the 
northwest  it  is  quite  brushy;  not  chaparral.  It  is  a  resemblance  of 
chamisal,  not  very  long.  That  is  up  on  top  of  the  hill.  The  north- 
west quarter  is  somewhat  better.  It  is  quite  steep,  and  the  southeast 
quarter  is  quite  steep.  There  is  a  creek  running  through  there,  or  a 
gulch. 

243-V;  very  rough  and  brushy.  I  do  not  know  whether  there 
are  any  government  lines  run  on  that  land. 

(Counsel  for  Defendant  states  that  the  Government  Surveyors 
have  not  been  able  to  run  the  lines  up  there,  as  it  is  too  rough  to 
get  at,  and  that  there  are  no  stakes  for  five  miles.)  877 

Map  14,  A-243 ;  can  all  be  farmed,  with  the  exception  of  from 
the  top  of  the  hill  sloping  towards  the  north.  That  portion  is  prac- 
tically covered  with  small  oak  trees. 

Referring  to  Cresta  Blanca;  I  think  there  is  less  than  half  of 
that  that  is  grazing  land.  I  did  not  put  a  valuation  on  the  half  that 
is  grazing  land,  and  a  value  on  the  half  that  is  not.  I  put  an  ap- 
praised value  of  $20  an  acre  on  it.  I  have  been  on  the  land  myself. 
Not  on  all  the  rough  part,  but  over  the  top  of  the  hill  to  get  the 
boundaries. 

When  we  sold  our  land  to  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Co.,  as  near  878 
as  I  can  remember,  we  knew  before  making  the  contract  for  sale, 
that  it  was  for  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Co.,  but  still  I  will  not  be 
positive  as  to  that.  I  asked  Mr.  Reed  and  Mr.  Gale,  the  parties  that 
were  around  buying,  if  it  was  for  a  purpose,  and  they  said  yes,  but 
I  did  not  know  that  they  were  agents  for  the  Spring  Valley. 

RE-DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  GREENE.  879 

I  think  it  was  a  fact  that  Mr.  Olney  instructed  me  in  appraising 
the  lands  from  Sunol  down  to  Niles,  on  Map  11,  parcels  239-A, 
239-B,  239-C,  239-D  and  239-E,  to  leave  a  line  of  50  or  75  feet 
roughly  above  the  creek  bed,  and  in  my  values  placed  on  these 
lands,  I  omitted  such  a  strip  as  that,  as  well  as  the  creek  bed.  I 
have  appraised  all  of  these  lands  for  agricultural  purposes.  880 

RE-CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.   STEINHART 

I  asked  the  agents,  when  I  sold  my  land,  whether  they  were 
buying  it  for  a  purpose,  because  if  it  was  for  a  purpose  other  than 
farming  or  agricultural  purposes,  we  would  not  sell  at  that  time. 

253 


Schween 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 
RE-DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  GREENE. 

That  conversation  was  before  we  signed  our  contract  of  sale.  I 
will  explain  what  I  mean  by,  a  purpose  other  than  agricultural. 
When  Mr.  Reed  and  Mr.  Gale  came  to  the  house  and  said  ' '  Schween, 
we  want  to  buy  your  land",  I  said,  ''You  cannot  get  it".  They  said 
"What  will  you  take  for  it".  I  said,  "It  is  not  for  sale",  and 
walked  away.  They  said  "Come  back  here".  Upon  my  going  back, 
they  said  "Now,  we  want  to  buy  your  land".  I  said,  "What  do  you 
want  to  do  with  it?"  They  said,  "That  is  all  right,  we  want  to  buy 
881  it."  I  said,  "Is  it  land  for  a  purpose  other  than  agriculture?",  and 
they  said  "It  is".  I  studied  over  the  matter,  and  questioned  them 
a  little  closer  who  this  land  was  for,  and  finally  I  told  them  I 
would  not  sell  the  land,  unless  we  were  compelled  to.  They  finally 
told  me,  and  I  took  it  up  with  my  brothers  and  sisters,  and  we  de- 
cided that  it  was  much  easier  to  divide  money  than  it  is  lands;  that 
is  how  we  negotiated  the  sale  finally. 

Questioned  by  Master. 

If  some  neighboring  farmer  had  come  along  to  buy  the  land 
at  the  same  price,  I  would  not  have  sold  it  to  him. 

RE-DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.   GREENE. 

The  following  year  we  tried  to  get  this  land  back;  we  were 
willing  to  give  them  back  their  money,  but  they  would  not  consider 
the  proposition. 

881-883  (Discussion  between   Counsel   as  to  laying  of  foundation  by 

Counsel  for  Defendant,  in  regard  to  Witness'  statement  that  the 
Interstate  Commerce  Commission  retains. 

Conceded  by  Counsel  for  Plaintiff  that  foundation  is  laid.  Coun- 
sel for  Defendant  then  gave  names  of  the  men  to  whom  Witness 
made  the  statement  and  when  and  where  it  was  made.) 


Mortimer        Witness:    W.  J.  MORTIMER. 

DIRECT    EXAMINATION    BY    MR.    GREENE. 

I  have  lived  in  Berkeley  about  twenty  years,  and  have  been 
engaged  in  the  real  estate  business  a  little  over  twenty  years,  with 
my  office  in  Berkeley,  and  operating  chiefly  in  Berkeley  and  Cali- 
fornia lands.  I  deal  in  city  property  and  country  farming  lands, 
fruit  lands  and  grain  lands.  During  the  past  20  years  the  volume 
884  of  my  business  in  the  property  in  Berkeley  and  Oakland,  and  sur- 
rounding Berkeley,  suburban  property,  about  20  million;  and 
country  property  about  $700,000.  I  have  dealt  in  lands  that  be- 
longed to  the  Alameda  Sugar  Co.,  at  Alvarado,  some  lands  in  Ala- 

254 


Mortimer 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

meda  County,  Contra  Costa  County,  and  several  interior  counties. 
I  have  a  knowledge  of,  own  farming  lands,  and  have  engaged  in 
farming.  I  own  lands  in  Alameda  County,  Contra  Costa  County, 
Santa  Clara,  Kern,  Tulare,  San  Joaquin,  and  Placer  Counties.  I 
have  been  employed  by  the  State  as  an  appraiser  of  Berkeley  prop- 
erty. The  Board  of  Equalization  employed  me  about  six  years  ago 
to  appraise  about  100  pieces  of  property  in  Berkeley,  for  the  pur- 
pose, I  presume,  of  learning  if  it  were  properly  assessed. 

I  am  familiar  with  the  properties  of  the  Spring  Valley  Water 
Co.,  at  Pleasanton,  and  have  been  over  the  properties  probably 
thirty  or  forty  times,  and  have  known  them  for  years.  I  have  made 
a  careful  appraisal  of  the  parcels  of  property  situated  at  Pleasanton,  885 
and  have  placed  my  value  on  those  properties  as  of  December  31, 
1913.  I  am  familiar  with  alfalfa  land,  and  sub-irrigated  alfalfa  land 
is  more  valuable  than  land  that  you  have  to  irrigate,  because  it 
makes  better  hay.  You  can  produce  seed  from  alfalfa  on  sub- 
irrigated  land  where  you  cannot  if  you  have  to  irrigate  it ;  you  can 
produce  seed  on  irrigated  land,  but  not  seed  that  they  will  buy  for 
seeding  purposes.  Sub-irrigated  alfalfa  land  is  not  plentiful  in  this 
state,  and  that  fact  appreciates  its  value  naturally.  The  extent  of 
sub-irrigated  alfalfa  land  within  100  miles  of  San  Francisco  is  lim-  886 
ited.  The  only  land  that  I  know  of  that  is  sub-irrigated,  is  in  the 
Pleasanton  country,  at  Alvarado,  at  Newark,  and  Byron,  Contra 
Costa  County. 

Memorandum  introduced  headed  "Value  of  Pleasanton  Lands, 
Alameda  County,  as  of  December  31,  1913";  first  column  has  the 
map  number,  second  the  parcel  number,  the  third  the  acreage,  the 
fourth  the  value  per  acre,  and  the  last,  total  value.  The  figures 
in  the  third  column  were  derived  from  the  company's  maps.  The 
fourth  column  sets  forth  my  appraisal  per  acre,  and  the  last  column 
the  total  valuation.  The  value  per  acre,  and  the  total  value,  as  set 
forth  there,  is  correct,  to  the  best  of  my  knowledge. 

Offered  and  received  in  evidence  as  "Plaintiff's  Exhibit  35". 

Most  of  your  Pleasanton  land  is  alfalfa,  that  will  raise  alfalfa 
without  irrigation.  It  is  good  for  beets,  potatoes,  corn  and  beans; 
I  should  judge  alfalfa  would  be  the  main  product,  and  beets  would  887 
come  second;  those  two  crops  in  my  judgment,  would  be  the  best. 
The  land  toward  the  Dublin  road,  lying  east  of  the  Santa  Rita  road, 
some  of  it  is  best  fitted  for  grain,  although  it  is  a  soil  that  is  adapted 
for  alfalfa  by  irrigation. 

Map  10;  the  land  lying  south  of  the  Arroyo  del  Valle  is  all 
alfalfa  land,  with  the  exception  of  a  knoll  on  1-239.  All  the  land 
lying  south  of  the  Arroyo  del  Valle,  and  north  of  the  Arroyo  del 
Valle,  and  west  of  the  Santa  Rita  road, — running  north  on  the  road 
leading  from  Pleasanton  to  Dublin — over  to  and  including  Liver- 
more  road,  thence  west,  all  those  parcels  to  my  mind,  would  raise 

255 


Mortimer 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

alfalfa  and  beets.  Portions  of  288  are  too  heavy  for  alfalfa,  and  the 
western  portion  of  U-268  is  heavy. 

The  land  around,  and  immediately  west  of  Pleasanton,  and  some 
portions  north,  has  a  rich  dark  loam  which  is  well  adapted  for  al- 
falfa. The  northerly  portion  of  the  land  being  heavier,  is  not  so 
good,  although  it  will  raise  it,  but  it  will  raise  better  grain ;  barley 

888  will  grow  well  on  the  heavier  soil,  where  alfalfa  will  not.     I  have 
taken  each  piece  separately,  and  put  a  value  on  it  as  the  conditions 
warrant.    I  have  appraised  the  land  in  its  present  condition  as  to 
boundaries.     I  have  paid  no  attention  to  the  houses  which  are  at 
the  present  time  on  the  land. 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  MCCUTCHEN. 

The  average  land  throughout  the  interior  yields  on  an  average 
10  to  12  sacks  of  barley.  Land  that  would  produce  34  sacks  of 
barley  to  the  acre,  I  would  say  was  extraordinarily  good  land. 

889  Questioned  by  Master. 

By  sub-irrigation,  I  mean  a  natural  condition  of  irrigation  below 
the  surface. 

CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.   STEINHART. 

I  know  that  the  land  in  the  Pleasanton  district  is  sub-irrigated, 
by  information,  and  by  asking  questions.  I  can  notice  also,  in  the 
canal  in  the  early  Spring  that  the  water  shows  evidences  of  it.  Evi- 
dence of  water  4  or  5  feet  below  the  level  of  the  ground.  I  also 
see  alfalfa  growing  without  irrigation — that  is  evident.  That  does 
not  apply  to  all  of  the  land  there.  Some  of  the  land  lying  east 
of  the  road  leading  from  Pleasanton  to  Santa  Rita,  is  higher  ground. 
I  should  judge  it  would  apply  to  all  of  the  lands,  with  the  excep- 

g90  tion  of  that  red  hill  I  spoke  of,  and  the  water  may  be  a  little 
too  near  the  surface  on  the  west  side  of  the  Chabot  tract.  I  exam- 
ined the  land  especially  for  that  purpose  in  May,  1914.  I  was  out 
there  two  weeks  ago,  all  over  the  tract,  and  I  have  driven  through 
it  numerous  times.  I  cannot  state  positively  that  I  have  seen  alfalfa 
growing  prior  to  1914,  for  the  reason  that  in  driving  through  the 
country  I  had  no  reason  for  picking  out  any  particular  part.  A  pur- 
chaser of  land  would  certainly  want  to  know  that  fact.  I  have  had 
considerable  experience  with  alfalfa  land. 

891  I  am  valuing  the  land  just  as  it  stands,  and  do  not  figure  the 

crop  in.  You  pay  more  than  $250  an  acre  for  good  alfalfa  land, 
sub-irrigated.  We  sold  some  for  a  higher  figure  than  that  at  Al- 
varado.  I  don't  know  anything  about  the  alfalfa  land  along  the 
Sacramento  River,  and  do  not  know  what  it  is  selling  for.  The 
factor  necessary  in  order  to  have  sub-surface  irrigated  alfalfa  land 
is  that  the  water  must  be  below  20  feet.  That  is  the  maximum 
depth.  It  is  better  to  have  it  12  and  15  feet.  If  the  water  plane 
sinks  and  rises,  but  does  not  sink  below  20  feet,  it  is  of  use  for  sub- 

256 


Mortimer 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

surface  alfalfa,  but  if  it  does  sink  below  that  point,  then  you  need 

to  irrigate.    I  am  familiar  with  the  cost  of  raising  alfalfa,  and  with       892 

the  plowing,  levelling   and  cultivating  of  the  land,   it  would  be 

about  $4  or  $5  an  acre;  the  cost  of  seeding  is  worth  15  cents  a  Ib. 

Plowing  and  checking  will  cost  about  $5  an  acre,  providing  there 

is  no  levelling  necessary.     Cutting  will  cost  $1.35  or  $1.50  a  ton. 

The  baling,  raking  and  sacking,  $1.35  to  $1.75  a  ton. 

If  you  have  sub-surface  irrigation,  you  do  not  necessarily  have  893 
to  irrigate  because  of  gophers.  My  method  would  be  to  poison  them. 
My  friends  have  done  that  on  sub-surface  irrigation  lands  in  Byron, 
Contra  Costa  County.  I  asked  a  friend  of  mine  if  he  would  take 
$400  for  his  land  there,  and  he  said,  no.  That  is  not  the  land  of 
the  Balfour-Guthrie  people.  I  could  not  give  you  the  exact  figures 
on  the  hauling  cost,  or  cost  of  delivery,  in  Pleasanton;  a  man's 
time  would  be  $30  or  $35  a  month;  he  can  haul  2  tons  to  a  load; 
it  is  just  simply  a  matter  of  figuring  it  out,  but  I  could  not  say 
exactly  what  the  cost  is.  I  have  not  grown  alfalfa  myself,  and  had  894 
no  experience  of  my  own  in  alfalfa  growing.  My  experience  in 
alfalfa  land  has  been  only  this  land  at  Alvarado,  which  I  have  sold, 
and  the  information  I  gained  is  through  my  brother,  who  is  in 
the  business,  and  my  friends.  They  are  not  beginning  to  irrigate 
the  land  we  sold,  which  is  located  south  of  the  Alameda  Creek,  and 
southeast  of  Alvarado, — between  the  Pleasanton  road  and  Alameda 
Creek.  This  land  lies  west  about  a  mile  or  two  of  the  Beard  tract, 
and  is  similar  land  to  it,  along  the  banks  of  the  Alameda,  of  the 
Beard  land;  the  Beard  land  along  the  Centerville  road  is  heavier, 
more  of  a  free  soil,  whereas,  the  Alvarado  lands  are  sandy  and  free 
soil.  We  sold  it  from  $375  to  $475  per  acre.  You  cannot  live  on 
that  land  because  it  oVerflows  in  the  Winter-time. 

Mr.  Harvey  bought  his  land  from  us  last  year ;  I  think  he  paid 
$325.  He  is  right  on  the  land  we  are  handling.  He  is  on  the  rail- 
road, between  the  railroad  and  Centerville  and  San  Jose  road.  He 
bought  some  of  the  poorest  land  in  the  tract.  Mr.  Harvey  paid  $250  895 
per  acre  for  22.58  acres,  $5,645.  I  do  not  know  whether  it  is  sub- 
irrigated  or  not,  but  I  hardly  think  so.  When  I  spoke  of  the  scarcity 
of  sub-surface  irrigation  alfalfa  land,  I  did  not  include  the  land 
along  the  Sacramento  River,  as  the  question  was  asked  concerning 
land  within  100  miles  of  San  Francisco,  and  I  did  not  consider  that 
within  100  miles.  In  placing  my  value  on  this  land,  I  figured  the  896 
market  price  of  alfalfa  at  $8.50  to  $10  f.  o.  b.  Pleasanton.  The  first 
cutting  is  not  worth  so  much.  The  average  price  per  ton  I  took  at 
-$8.50.  ' 

(Counsel  for  Defendant  stated  the  pamphlet  issued  by  the  Uni- 
versity of  California,  before  referred  to,  gives  $8.00  per  ton  as  the 
average,  but  upon  question  by  Counsel  for  Plaintiff,  was  not  sure 

257 


Mortimer 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

as  to  whether  that  meant  the  average  price  at  the  shipping  point 
all  over  the  State  of  California.) 

897  I  saw  alfalfa  quoted  the  other  day  at  $8.50.     The  difference 
between  $250  an  acre,  and  the  value  of  $500  an  acre,  that  I  have 
placed  on  the  Pleasanton  lands,  is  due  to  the  fact  that  his  land 
does  not  compare  with  the  Pleasanton  lands.    I  sold  some  land  prac- 
tically adjoining  his  for  $475  an  acre  in  the  same  tract.     Then,  the 
Pleasanton  land  is  a  far  better  place  to  live.    This  land  at  Alvarado 
overflows  in  the  Winter-time.    You  cannot  build  upon  it  as  it  is  all 
under  water  more  or  less.     His  particular  piece  lies  between  the 
railroad  and  the  county  road,  and  if  I  am  not  mistaken,  that  is 
overflowed.     Overflowed  land  is  particularly  rich  land,  but  it  de- 
stroys its  value  as  a  residential  section.     Outside  of  that  district, 
I  do  not  know  of  any  alfalfa  land  that  has  sold  as  high  as  $500 
an  acre,  and  I  claim  to  be  familiar  with  alfalfa  lands.    The  Harvey 
tract  is  22.58  acres.    I  sold  several  pieces  there ;  5^>  acres,  the  low- 

898  est,  to  the  Harvey  piece.,  the  largest. 

Map  10,  parcel  279,  at  $250  an  acre,  and  parcel  274  at  $225  an 
acre;  I  put  a  lower  valuation  on  parcel  274  because  it  is  a  long 
narrow  strip,  and  is  of  a  lower  nature;  not  so  good.  It  is  narrow, 
which  offsets  its  value,  and  I  appraised  the  smaller  piece  lower  be- 
cause it  was  a  smaller  piece,  and  it  is  lower  ground.  The  factor 
of  difference  between  parcels  239-h,  239-n  at  $500  an  acre  (excep- 
tion 239-i),  and  239-o  to  239-t  at  $275  an  acre,  is  that  the  cheaper 
portion  is  more  of  a  clay;  it  is  a  clay  loam;  and  not  as  rich  as  the 
other.  I  went  over  that  twice  very  carefully  to  distinguish  the  dif- 
ference. I  gave  parcels  272  and  273  a  value  of  $550  an  acre  because 
it  was  a  rich  dark  loam,  with  no  clay  in  it,  and  I  valued  them  at 
a  higher  price  than  239-e,  f,  g  and  h,  which  I  valued  at  $500,  be- 

899  cause  there  is  some  land  along  the  creek  there.    The  fact  that  par- 
cels 272  and  273  were  small  pieces,  did  not  play  any  part  in  that 
case;  that  is  good  vegetable  land  and  berry  land.    Parcel  273  was 
$50  more  an  acre  than  the  other  on  account  of  this  other  being  along 
the  creek.    Brush  was  growing  over  the  land  somewhat,  and  it  had  to 
be  cleared  along  the  banks  of  the  Laguna  Creek.    That  is  my  reason 
for  that. 

239-h,  about  2  acres,  along  a  portion  of  the  creek  that  would 
not  be  in  land;  I  did  not  take  off  much  for  the  presence  of  the 
creek.  There  are  108  acres  in  this  parcel,  and  I  figured  about  2 
acres  in  the  creek,  and  I  took  into  consideration  the  fact,  in  valuing 
that  parcel,  that  a  portion  of  it  was  in  the  creek.  Those  are  about  all 
the  factors  of  difference  that  I  took  into  consideration. 

900  Parcel  277 ;  particularly  adapted  to  alfalfa ;  will  grow  beets  and 
most  any  kind  of  garden  truck.     It  will  go  in  alfalfa  in  1914,  rich 
dark  loam.    I  have  nothing  noted  here  to  offset  this  value  of  $550 
an  acre,  as  between  the  value  on  239-h.    I  do  not  know  that  it  was 

258 


Mortimer 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

in  alfalfa  in  December  31,  1913,  so  that  that  could  not  have  made 
any  difference  in  my  valuations  as  of  December  31,  1913.  As  to 
other  factors  of  difference,  outside  of  the  fact  that  there  are  2 
acres  of  239-h  in  the  creek,  I  called  one  a  rich  dark  loam,  and  the 
other  a  rich  loam.  That  land  along  the  creek  is  very  good  land.  I 
probably  called  it  $50  less  than  the  land  in  the  interior,  but  I  have 
no  other  reason,  except  that  parcel  277  is  better  adapted  for  a 
home  than  it  is  along  that  creek.  That  might  have  had  some  bearing 
at  the  time  I  valued  it.  I  don't  know  the  reason  right  now,  but 
that  might  have  been  the  reason. 

268-R,  valued  at  $575  an  acre;  I  have  my  note  like  this,  in  901 
regards  to  268-R  and  280;  "268-R,  $575  per  acre,  dark  free  soil, 
about  15  acres  in  alfalfa",  and  so  on.  As  to  280,  I  say  that  this 
land  would  be  worth  more,  $600  per  acre,  on  a  main  road,  but  being 
on  a  side  avenue,  it  detracts  from  its  value.  Its  proximity  to  the 
town  of  Pleasanton  increases  its  value.  I  have  it  only  at  $550.  My 
point  there  is  that  it  is  not  so  close  to  the  main  road,  and  I  have 
attached  a  certain  importance  as  a  residential  section  to  all  these 
Pleasanton  properties.  For  instance,  if  I  were  to  buy  one  or  the 
other,  and  both  lands  being  the  same,  I  would  pay  more  to  be  on 
the  county  road  than  I  would  to  be  on  an  inside  avenue,  notwith- 
standing that  the  distance  is  very  small,  and  the  fact  that  280  fronts 
on  an  avenue. 

I  put  a  higher  value  on  268-R  than  268-Q,  because  in  my  judg- 
ment I  determined  that  268-R  has  a  higher  water  table  than  268-Q, 
being  better  suited  for  alfalfa.  268-Q  is  higher  and  splendid 
ground,  being  some  five  or  six  feet  higher,  but  not  so  good,  in 
my  mind.  I  do  not  know  what  the  water  table  below  the  ground 
is,  only  by  the  growth  of  the  alfalfa.  I  do  not  know  how  long  the  902 
alfalfa  in  268-Q  has  been  growing.  My  notation  as  to  that  parcel 
is,  "all  in  grain  with  the  exception  of  about  20  acres  in  alfalfa". 
I  cannot  say  that  I  used  absolutely  the  appearance  of  that  20  acres 
of  alfalfa  in  judging  as  to  the  water  plane  between  268-R  and 
268-Q.  I  judged  the  land.  In  my  mind  I  think  it  would  not  be 
as  good  alfalfa  land,  and  made  my  appraisement  accordingly.  I 
have  grown  no  alfalfa  myself. 

In  regard  to  286  and  283;  283  is  all  level  land,  good  stand  of 
grain.  My  notation  states  that  I  consider  the  water  table  too  low 
for  probable  growing  of  alfalfa  without  irrigation,  and  so  I  placed 
a  value  on  that  of  $350,  and  on  the  other  a  value  of  $500.  Referring 
to  the  143  acre  piece  in  parcel  283,  that  is  $450.  The  pasture  land  903 
being  rather  heavy,  and  the  water  table  near  the  surface,  makes  it 
rather  too  heavy  for  other  use  than  pasture,  although  it  could  be 
drained  at  very  little  cost;  the  balance  of  the  land  good  for  all 
general  farming — alfalfa,  grain,  especially  beets.  That  would  need 
some  work  to  make  it  good  alfalfa  land.  The  17.28  acres  of  286  I 

259 


Mortimer 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

valued  at  $500.  That  is  natural  feed  pasture  land.  I  learn  around 
Pleasanton  that  that  land  is  peculiarly  adapted  for  stock  men.  I 
made  several  inquiries  about  it.  I  saw  so  many  horses  in  the  pas- 
ture, that  I  inquired  what  they  got  per  head,  and  I  was  told  that 
the  average  price  was  $5  per  month,  and  learned  that  it  would 
carry  a  little  better  than  one  head  to  the  acre. 

The  factors  of  difference  between  286  and  243,  the  40  acre  tract: 
I  had  that  all  level  land,  and  a  good  stand  of  grain ;  water  table  too  low 
for  proper  growing  of  alfalfa  without  irrigation.  First-class  grain 
land,  $350  per  acre,  and  I  so  valued  it  because  of  that  fact,  and  that  it 
could  be  grown  in  alfalfa  with  irrigation.  My  statistics  as  to  the  water 

904  table  I  got  by  judging  it  by  the  condition,  by  the  appearance,  and  in- 
formation that  I  gained.     You  could  see  the  water  in  some  of  those 
canals,  which  would  speak  for  itself  that  the  water  table  was  not  very 
low.    I  did  not  see  any  water  table  in  the  40  acre  piece  in  parcel  283, 
as  that  is  higher  ground. 

The  factors  of  difference  between  parcels  275  and  282,  the  38 
acre  piece.  275,  40  acres;  is  first-class  alfalfa  land.  The  difference 
between  275  and  239-c :  I  have  it  here  that  that  is  particularly  adapt- 
able for  vegetables.  It  has  a  sediment  loam,  and  I  gave  that  a  vegetable 
value,  and  the  other  an  alfalfa  value.  I  have  sold  high-priced  alfalfa 
land — 100  acres  near  Alvarado — in  addition  to  the  sales  in  the  Beard 

905  Tract.    I  do  not  know  that  this  Beard  Tract  land  is  grown  to  alfalfa 
now.    The  Beard  Tract,  I  think,  I  sold  about  three  years  ago,  to  Ben- 
jamin Bangs,  or  the  Suburban  Water  Co.,  I  have  forgotten  now  just 
which.    That  was  a  sale  to  the  Spring  Valley  "Water  Co.,  but  I  am  not 
sure  whether  the  deed  went  to  them  or  not.    That  is  all  of  the  high- 
priced  alfalfa  land  that  I  have  handled. 

288,  the   Chabot  piece;   I   did  not  examine  that  to  determine 

906  whether  there  was  any  alkali  in  it.    I  found  no  bare  spots  indicating 
black  alkali.    There  might  have  been  white  alkali,  and  if  the  Govern- 
ment Reports  say  that  the  Chabot  piece  contained  alkali,  I  would  not 
say  that  those  reports  are  incorrect.    You  can  find  alkali  in  most  all 
lands.    $225  is  my  appraisement  for  all  of  the  Chabot  piece,  except 
200  acres  at  $100.     It  is  a  heavier  soil,  and  will  not  grow  alfalfa  so 
rapidly  and  so  well  as  the  black  and  rich  loam  that  I  appraised  further 
down  below  Pleasanton. 

RE-DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  GREENE. 

907  The  Alvarado  lands,  which  I  sold  for  alfalfa  growing,  ranged  in 
price  from  $250  to  $475  per  acre. 

Beard  land ;  we  paid  Mrs.  Beard  $400  per  acre ;  Josephs  $525  per 
acre;  Duarte  $450  per  acre;  and  Diablo  $475  per  acre.  This  is  the 
same  Beard  land  which  the  water  company  purchased.  The  land  along 
by  the  creek,  that  I  paid  $525  for,  is  good  alfalfa  land;  the  Beard 
property  along  the  road  is  not ;  it  is  heavier. 

260 


SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 
RE-DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  MCCUTCHEN. 

I  do  not  know  anything  about  the  prices  at  which  land  was  sold  in 
the  West  Sacramento  Reclamation. 


Mortimer 


Witness :    W.  S.  CLAYTON. 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  MCCUTCHEN. 

I  was  born  in  San  Jose  on  October  the  10th,  1864;  am  50  years 
of  age,  and  at  the  present  time  am,  and  since  May  1,  1907,  have  been 
President  of  the  First  National  Bank  of  San  Jose.  Prior  to  that  time 
I  was  in  the  real  estate  business ;  first  with  my  father  under  the  name 
of  James  A.  Clayton  from  1884  to  the  1st  of  January,  1887 ;  and  the 
1st  of  January,  1887,  was  taken  into  partnership  with  my  brother  and 
father,  and  we  continued  as  such  until  my  father's  death,  in  1896,  and 
thereafter  until  the  distribution  of  his  estate  in  1906.  In  1906  we 
turned  the  business  over  to  a  corporation,  and  called  it  the  James  A. 
Clayton  Company,  composed  of  my  brother  and  myself.  My  brother, 
who  is  now  deceased,  and  myself,  had  full  charge  of  the  business,  my 
father  retiring  on  the  first  of  January,  1887.  From  the  time  I  went 
into  the  business  with  my  father,  up  to  the  time  I  became  President 
of  the  First  National  Bank  of  San  Jose,  my  time  was  entirely  devoted 
to  the  real  estate  business.  I  was  operating  in  San  Jose,  Santa  Clara 
County,  and  we  went  into  the  Counties  of  San  Mateo,  Santa  Cruz, 
Monterey,  San  Benito,  and  Alameda.  I  have  been  engaged  in  particu- 
larly looking  after  the  loans,  and  making  the  loans  and  collecting  them, 
and  keeping  track  of  them,  since  I  first  went  into  the  bookkeeping  de- 
partment of  the  office  in  1884.  I  have  been  in  the  habit  of  appraising 
real  estate  for  the  purpose  of  making  loans,  since  I  became  President 
of  the  First  National  Bank.  I  approve  all  the  loans  made  by  the  bank, 
excepting  those  that  are  made  during  my  vacation.  The  loans  that  are 
made  at  the  present  time,  anything  over  $5,000,  by  James  A.  Clayton 
&  Co.,  are  submitted  to  me  for  approval  before  they  are  made. 

Questioned  by  Master. 

I  am  situated  in  this  manner  in  regard  to  the  real  estate  office  of 
James  A.  Clayton  &  Co.  I  do  not  own  the  real  estate  office  at  the  pres- 
ent time.  In  1906  I  sold  out  my  interest  in  it  to  my  brother.  He 
died  on  August  28,  1908,  about  18  months  after  I  went  into  the  bank. 
My  mother  and  his  widow  became  his  heirs.  I  had  no  money  interest 
in  the  business ;  neither  my  mother  nor  his  wife  were  able  to  run  the 
business,  so  I  induced  a  young  man  by  the  name  of  Mr.  Reed,  to  take 
"a  one 'third  interest  in  it,  and  to  become  the  manager  of  it.  They  re- 
tain me  as  Secretary,  not  particularly  for  the  official  work,  but  simply 
as  an  officer  to  look  over  things.  I  require  them  not  to  loan  any 
money  without  my  knowing  it. 

261 


Clayton 
908 


909 


Clayton 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

910  DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  MCCUTCHEN. 

Since  the  death  of  my  brother  I  have  kept  in  close  touch  with  the 
business  as  the  representative  of  my  mother  and  sister-in-law,  and 
pass  on  all  loans  where  the  amount  is  over  $5,000.  James  A.  Clayton 
&  Co.  loan  more  money  than  any  bank,  firm  or  corporation  that  has 
been  in  that  county  since  1870. 

I  have  known  the  Calaveras  Valley,  and  the  lands  about  it,  since 
I  was  a  boy,  and  have  made  probably  two  or  three  visits  a  year  to  the 
Calaveras  Valley  during  the  past  15  or  20  years.  I  have  made  an  ap- 
praisement of  the  land  of  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Co.,  in  and  about 
Calaveras  Valley,  and  lying  on  the  Arroyo  Honda  and  Alameda  Creek. 
I  have  made  a  typewritten  memorandum  setting  forth  the  individual 
valuations,  and  the  aggregate  valuation. 

Introduces  a  memorandum  with  a  heading  "Value  Alameda  and 

911  Santa  Clara  Lands,  Appraised  by  W.  S.  Clayton".    This  contains  the 
detail  of  my  valuation,  and  also  the  aggregate  of  them.    Offered  and 
received  in  evidence,  as  "Plaintiff's  Exhibit  36". 

Calaveras  Valley  is  a  perfect  little  valley,  surrounded  by  strong 
mountains  on  each  side,  and  a  very  narrow  outlet  that  is  almost  in  solid 
rock.  The  accumulation  of  soil  in  the  level  portions  has  been  from 
hills  that  had  very  fine  soil ;  the  body  of  the  valley  is  very  rich.  There 
are  springs  coming  out  on  each  side  of  the  valley  as  far  as  these  lands 
go  in  both  directions,  that  make  it  a  paradise  for  cattle,  and  for  agri- 
cultural purposes,  and  brings  the  valley  full  of  moisture.  It  is  almost 
unparalleled  in  an  agricultural  situation.  There  is  hardly  any  square 

912  mile  but  what  has  its  springs  accessible  to  cattle.    There  are  many  run- 
ning streams  through  it. 

I  have  set  out  orchards  on  speculation.  I  have  had  to  hire  all  the 
work,  and  since  1884  I  do  not  think  I  have  ever  been  relieved  of  the 
care  of  but  one  or  two  of  such  orchards  or  properties,  and  by  that  I 
mean  that  I  have  had  them  in  charge  for  clients  of  my  office,  as  well 
as  for  my  own  account. 

Proceeding  with  description  of  Calaveras:  floor  of  valley  won- 
derfully productive ;  produces  in  dry  years,  and  not  killed  in  wet 
years;  should  have  been  a  prune  orchard,  or  any  other  high  produc- 
tive plantation.  The  fact  that  it  has  been  in  the  hands  of  cattle  men 
who  have  confined  the  production  to  hay,  has  simply  been  their  loss. 
The  productivety  of  that  valley  for  sugar  beets,  potatoes,  fruit,  is 
easily  proven.  The  fact  that  it  has  not  been  put  to  more  profitable 
crops  has  simply  been  a  loss  of  that  much  money  to  the  world.  Ideally 
situated  for  walnuts  in  certain  portions ;  perhaps  the  water  comes  too 
near  the  surface  in  certain  portions  for  fruit  trees  that  require  a 
greater  rooting  depth.  There  are  two  orchards  in  the  valley  that  have 
withstood  the  neglect  of  the  years.  One  of  them,  of  15  acres,  is  planted 
with  prunes,  and  scattering  other  trees.  The  other  orchard,  of  about 

262 


SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

25  acres,  is  principally  prunes  and  pears.  I  have  seen  very  fair  crops  913 
on  those  orchards;  very  sizeable  fruit.  The  rating  of  the  crop  in 
prunes  depends  upon  the  size  of  the  fruit.  The  price  of  prunes  in- 
creases at  the  rate  of  $1  a  point  about  the  number  80.  We  have  the 
four  sizes,  and  number  80  is  the  middle  of  the  four  sizes ;  if  they  are 
80s,  that  adds  $50  more  than  the  basis  of  80.  I  am  a  prune  orchardist 
myself.  Other  portions  of  the  valley  than  that  now  planted  to  prunes 
is  adaptable  to  prune  growing.  From  the  point  in  the  northern  half 
of  the  valley,  and  climbing  up  on  the  hills  in  the  south  end,  there  is 
a  most  wonderful  chance  for  fruit  in  there;  I  have  been  told  that  it 
would  run  1000  acres,  but  do  not  know  whether  it  would  or  not;  it 
certainly  would  run  from  about  150  acres  north  of  the  25  acre  orchard, 
to  the  hills  on  the  south  end  of  the  valley ;  how  much  they  would  con- 
tain I  do  not  know,  but  it  is  a  fine  big  area. 

I  think  this  land  is  superior  to  any  land  in  Santa  Clara  Valley  914 
upon  which  prunes  are  grown  successfully,  excepting  the  land  around 
Coyote  Station.  The  hills  come  rather  close  together  in  the  locality 
around  Coyote,  so  as  to  hold  the  water  back.  There  is  a  little  spur  of 
hills  running  across  the  valley  there.  The  lands  for  a  matter  of  four 
miles  above  those  hills  are  very  much  sought  after,  excepting  where 
the  water  is  excessive.  When  I  say  four  miles  above,  I  mean  four  miles 
to  the  south  of  that  acreage  in  the  main  Santa  Clara  Valley. 

The  good  quality  prune  lands  that  are  not  set  out  to  trees,  are 
hard  to  get,  but  when  you  can  find  them,  you  will  have  to  pay  from  915 
$300  to  $500  per  acre,  largely  dictated  by  location.  I  do  not  think 
you  would  find  any  land  in  the  valley  from  the  Sixteen  Mile  House — 
down  the  valley  toward  Gilroy — northward  throughout  the  valley,  for 
less  than  $300  an  acre.  You  might  find  a  few  that  could  be  purchased 
at  $300,  but  the  majority  of  them  would  be  higher  than  that. 

The  valley  lands  in  Calaveras  Valley  would  produce  20  to  25  tons 
per  acre  of  sugar  beets,  and  the  portions  of  it  that  /are  not  too  wet,  nor 
too  dry,  would  be  productive  of  heavy  crops  of  potatoes.  Some  of 
those  Portuguese  along  those  hills  there  get  as  high  as  $1,000  an  arce 
once  in  awhile.  I  do  not  mean  in  the  Calaveras,  but  around  in  that 
neighborhood.  I  refer  to  some  hills  on  the  west  side  of  the  range  lead- 
ing into  the  big  valley.  I  do  not  mean  that  that  means  vast  acres  at  916 
a  time,  because  Portuguese  do  not  farm  that  way.  Of  course  all  farm- 
ing is  a  great  gamble.  A  man  might  produce  in  one  year  and  get 
$300  for  his  work  per  acre,  and  another  year  he  might  get  $30.  I 
know  of  one  party  in  there,  not  very  far  from  the  Calaveras  Valley,  but 
on  the  Santa  Clara  side  of  the  range,  that  got  approximately  $225  off 
about  three-quarters  of  an  acre  of  early  potatoes  this  year.  Those 
lands  are  adapted  to  raising  hay,  grain,  vineyards,  and  alfalfa  under 
certain  conditions.  There  are  acres  of  this  valley  which  will  produce 
luxuriant  growths  of  alfalfa  without  irrigation,  and  there  are  other 
portions  that  would  require  to  be  irrigated.  I  think  that  alfalfa  will 

263 


SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

grow  on  any  kind  of  land,  it  is  just  a  question  of  productivity,  but 
that  better  crops  will  be  produced  on  some  lands  than  on  others. 

CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  STEINHART. 

917  I  have  never  grown  any  alfalfa. 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  MCCUTCHEN. 

I  have  dealt  in  and  loaned  money  to  farmers  for  the  purpose  of 
improving  alfalfa  lands,  and  have  also  loaned  money  on  alfalfa  lands. 
On  the  good  lands,  where  the  water  plane  leaves  sufficient  feeding 
ground,  I  think  these  lands  could  produce  as  high  as  any  alfalfa  lands 
there  are  in  the  State  of  California  for  a  fraction  of  the  acreage.  I 
imagine,  and  therefore  do  not  state  it  as  a  positive  proposition,  that 
such  crops  would  run  about  one  and  one-quarter  tons  per  cutting.  The 
number  of  cuttings  per  acre  would  largely  depend  upon  the  climatic 
conditions.  Where  they  devote  the  land  exclusively  to  alfalfa,  there 
will  be  some  years  four  cuttings,  other  years  seven  cuttings. 

These  lands  are  ideally  located  for  dairying  and  for  cattle  raising. 
I  do  not  think  there  is  any  spot  of  a  similar  number  of  acres  any- 
where equal  to  that  valley  and  the  surrounding  hills  as  a  cattle  range. 

918  The  natural  feed  is  there,  and  with  the  valley,  in  connection  with  that 
natural  feed,  there  is  an  ideal  combination.    There  is  a  constant  in- 
quiry for  favorable  cattle  ranges,  and  it  is  almost  impossible  to  satisfy 
that  inquiry.     The  people  who  own  such  ranges  will  not  sell  them, 
they  think  so  much  of  them.    The  investment  of  money  is  a  very  diffi- 
cult proposition,  and  where  a  whole  family  may  be  employed  profitably 
to  themselves  and  make  a  profit,  that  is,  make  more  money  than  the 
ordinary  interest  investment,  such  opportunities  are  really  very  much 
sought  after,  and  they  are  very  hard  to  find. 

Land  valued  at  $300  an  acre  would  not  be  a  good  stock  ranch  if 
it  was  all  $300  an  acre  land ;  it  requires  grazing  land  to  make  a  satis- 
factory stock  ranch.  A  range  is  composed  of  many  things.  It  is  not 
only  grass,  but  brush  on  the  range  is  some  times  just  as  valuable  as 
the  grass ;  also  the  different  kinds  of  grasses  that  get  ripe  at  different 
seasons  of  the  year ;  what  today  would  look  to  be  waste  land  on  a  range, 
might  in  the  month  of  January  or  December  be  the  sustaining  acres. 

919  This  land  would  subdivide  into  four  cattle  ranges  perfectly.    That  is, 
to  take  the  two  ridges  on  the  east  side,  and  to  take  the  western  slope 
for  the  other  two.    Aside  from  the  Pleasanton  Valley,  I  do  not  know 
of  any  valley  within  50  miles  of  San  Francisco  where  conditions  of 
soil  and  of  sub-irrigation  present  themselves  as  they  do  in  Calaveras 
Valley.     The  only  two  spots  of  that  kind  that  occur  to  me  are  that 
land  south  of  the  Coyote  Hills,  across  in  Santa  Clara  Valley,  and  on 
the  banks  of  San  Felipe  Creek,  or  Old  Gilroy,  east  of  Gilroy,  both  of 
them  of  limited  areas,  but  they  both  have  subterranean  water-fed  land. 
Conditions  of  that  kind  are  very  rare. 

Map  16,  parcel  223 ;  440  acres  appraised  at  $10  per  acre.    That  is 

264 


Clayton 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

a  low  appraisement  for  cattle  grazing  in  conjunction  with  the  other 
lands. 

Map  16,  parcel  225;  that  is  the  big  north  end  of  the  Calaveras 
reservoir  site;  takes  in  both  sides  of  the  valley.  All  kinds  of  lands 
are  in  that.  A  fair  valuation  for  the  entire  acreage  would  be  $40  an 
acre.  On  the  hillsides — a  portion  of  that  land — hay  can  be  raised.  A  920 
majority  of  the  hillsides  are  devoted  to  pasture,  and  probably  most 
suitable  for  that.  A  good  deal  of  the  bottom  land  is  being  injured  by 
the  building  of  the  dam.  To  consider  that  before  construction  by  the 
engineers,  there  were  some  very  good  spots  there  for  hay,  grain,  ber- 
ries and  vegetables — not  too  great  a  proportion  of  that,  however.  Valu- 
ation $40  an  acre. 

Map  16,  parcel  246;  the  south  half,  and  the  northeast  quarter  of 
section  18,  called  the  north  hillside;  $17.50  an  acre.  That  is  pastur- 
age; quite  a  fair  amount  of  standing  oak  trees;  very  good  grazing 
ground,  in  conjunction  with  other  lands  to  make  more  acres  to  hold 
out  a  whole  season. 

Map  16,  parcel  320,  valuation  $75  per  acre ;  kind  of  an  adobe  hill 
on  the  west  side  of  the  valley.  A  part  of  it  runs  down  into  the  creeks, 
where  there  is  good  property.  A  majority  of  the  land  being  not  of  that 
rich  bench  land,  I  made  an  average  valuation  of  $75  an  acre  on  the 
whole  120  acres. 

SIXTEENTH  HEARING.  AUGUST  5,  1915. 

Witness:    W.  S.  CLAYTON. 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY   MR.   MCCUTCHEN.  921 

(Certain  corrections  made  by  witness  on  his  previous  days'  tes-       922 
timony.    Parcel  225  corrected  to  $30  an  acre,  corrections  made  in  some 
remarks  also  about  the  productions  and  prices  per  acre  of  yields.) 

The  Portuguese  have  got  as  high  as  $250  per  acre  on  early  pota- 
toes. Those  are  not  average  yields,  but  are  good  yields.  On  early 
peas  one  party  got  $200  for  an  acre  and  a  half.  On  similar  land  in 
the  immediate  vicinity,  a  farmer,  by  name  Jim  Hansen,  got  $461.50 
from  17  lemon  trees  in  1913.  Lemons  can  be  very  successfully  grown 
in  the  Santa  Clara  Valley.  The  principal  thing  is  water,  and  the  Calav- 
eras neighborhood  has  plenty  of  water.  The  Hansen  place  lays  be-  923 
tween  the  Laguna  School,  which  is  on  the  far  end  of  the  Hansen  lands, 
and  Air  Point  School  House  that  is  on  the  west  side  of  the  Hansen 
place.  The  Hansen  lands  are  distant  from  the  westerly  point  of  the 
Calaveras  lands  about  one  mile,  and  from  the  body  of  the  Calaveras 
Valley  land,  which  would  be  subject  to  raising  lemons,  and  such  things 
as  he  raises  on  his  place.  It  runs  from  one  to  three  miles.  I  do  not 
know  the  facts  with  reference  to  the  temperature  of  Calaveras  Valley, 
as  compared  with  the  point  where  Hansen 's  lemon  orchard  is,  but  the 
elevations  are  so  similar  that  I  would  consider  the  westerly  slopes  of 

265 


Cla7ton 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

the  Calaveras  Valley  equal  to  his  at  present.  His  elevation  is  600 
feet,  according  to  the  Government  map,  and  the  Calaveras  land  runs 
around  approximately  700  feet. 

924  There  are  apricot  orchards  planted  this  year  almost  adjoining 
parcel  c-268,  and  on  i-268,  remains  the  wreck  of  an  orchard,  and  on 
g-268  there  was  quite  an  orchard.     The  apricot  orchard  lies  not  over 
forty  acres  from  parcel  c-268,  just  outside  of  section  2,  and  sold  for 
$10,500  for  76  acres  before  it  was  planted  to  apricots.    These  apricots 
are  one  year  old,  and  look  very  good.    This  is  the  Rouse  property. 

Questioned  by  Master. 

925  It  is  near  the  road  which  goes  from  Milpitas  into  Calaveras.    The 
north  line  runs  very  close  to  the  Laguna  School  House,  and  the  prop- 
erty is  on  the  west  of  the  crest,    c-268  runs  pretty  near  along  the  line 
of  the  summit,  and  is  entirely  on  the  easterly  slope  of  the  range. 

CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY   MR.   STEINHART. 

The  Rouse  piece  is  entirely  on  the  westerly  side. 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.    MCCUTCHEN. 

The  difference  in  elevation  between  the  highest  portion  of  c-268 
and  the  Rouse  land  is  not  material ;  50  to  75  feet. 

DIRECT    EXAMINATION    BY    MR.    GREENE. 

Between  the  highest  portion  of  c-268  and  the  lowest  portion  of 
the  Rouse  land,  there  may  be  150  to  200  feet. 

Questioned  by  Master. 

The  southern  slopes  are  the  best  for  apricots.  There  would  not 
be  more  heat  on  the  westerly  slope  than  on  the  easterly  slope,  as  there 
is  a  cooler  climate  on  the  Santa  Clara  Valley  slopes  on  account  of  the 

926  winds  from  San  Francisco  Bay.    c-268  would  be  comparatively  warmer 
than  the  westerly  slope  on  account  of  that  throughout  the  summer,  but 
through  the  winter  it  might  be  a  little  colder  on  account  of  the  lack 
of  the  ocean  breeze. 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.   MCCUTCHEN. 

Apricots  are  second  in  series  of  blossoming;  almonds  are  first. 
They  come  along  in  February  in  the  valley  portions.  Apricots  bloom 
in  March  in  the  valley.  Prunes  run  from  the  20th  of  March  to  the 
20th  of  April,  according  to  the  spring.  The  Saratoga  Blossom  Festi- 
val Committee  sets  the  date  for  the  Prune  Blossoming  Festival  one 
month  after  the  apricots  blossom,  but  that  varies  season  by  season. 

Map  16,  parcel  322 ;  very  rich  piece  of  property ;  formerly  houses 
upon  it,  and  around  those  houses  a  few  family  orchard  trees,  with  some 
walnut  and  fig  trees  still  remaining  on  the  lower  portion.  Half  the 

927  land  is  below  the  reservoir  land,  and  all  that  below  is  exceptionally 
good  land,  capable  of  irrigation  from  the  little  creek  that  runs  through 

266 


Clayton 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

there,  and  a  very  desirable,  quickly  salable  piece  of  land.  Above  that 
line,  outside  of  a  few  acres,  which  might  be  too  steep,  or  in  brush,  it 
is  tillable.  The  entire  place  is  very  desirable.  Valued  at  $100  an  acre 
on  the  whole  place.  The  portion  which  can  be  irrigated  could  be  used 
for  fruit,  alfalfa,  sugar  beets  and  dairying.  All  the  higher  grades  of 
agriculture  now  in  common  use  in  the  Santa  Clara  Valley  could  be 
produced  on  that  place.  All  the  deciduous  fruits,  walnuts,  prunes,  and 
apricots,  could  be  grown  there  successfully.  Beautifully  located  for 
a  lemon  orchard.  I  put  a  price  of  $100  an  acre  on  that,  as  against 
a  higher  figure,  on  account  of  its  rolling  nature.  I  found  but  two  or 
three  walnut  trees  on  the  place,  and  these  had  grown  very  large.  I  did 
not  notice  that  there  was  any  fruit  on  them. 

Map  16,  323 ;  valued  at  $200  per  acre,  taking  all  of  it.  I  would  928 
consider,  if  I  could  purchase  it  for  $200  per  acre,  that  I  could  make 
a  ready  profit  of  25%  within  a  few  years.  It  is  very  rich  land.  A 
portion  of  it  now  is  overflowed  for  lack  of  drainage.  Produces  its  own 
water,  and  is  capable  of  flowing  artesian  wells  anywhere  you  want  to 
bore.  There  are  some  flowing  artesian  wells  existing  now.  The  wet 
portion  could  be  readily  drained.  All  the  portions  that  are  not  too 
wet  are  excellently  adapted  for  raising  fruits  of  all  the  kinds  that  we 
are  accustomed  to  raising,  and  yielding  perhaps  a  larger  average  yield 
than  a  common  orchard  in  the  body  of  the  Santa  Clara  Valley.  The 
soil  is  very  good,  and  the  trees  would  find  their  own  water  without 
irrigation. 

In  the  portions  of  Santa  Clara  Valley  planted  to  fruit,  artificial 
irrigation  is  resorted  to  quite  generally  where  the  subterranean  water 
is  available  in  sufficient  quantity,  and  can  be  obtained  by  boring  wells, 
which  cost  a  lot  of  money  in  the  first  place,  and  then  pumping  the  929 
water,  by  steam  power,  gasoline,  or  electric  power.  Some  of  these 
wells  will  yield  200  gallons  a  minute.  I  have  one  on  my  place  that 
will  run  2200  a  minute.  Between  those  sizes  you  will  find  almost 
every  quantity  of  yield.  The  ones  that  yield  the  least  are  the  most 
expensive  to  put  in.  The  water  you  get  from  them  is  the  most  ex- 
pensive to  get  out,  and  the  land  as  a  general  rule,  needs  it  the  most. 
The  yields  of  200  to  600  gallons  a  minute  are  generally  found  at  about 
a  200  foot  depth,  and  they  will  sink  a  pit  from  80  to  125  feet  to  get  a 
sufficiently  low  enough  stand  to  put  the  pump  upon,  if  they  are  using 
a  centrifugal  pump,  that  will  be  within  the  reach  of  its  power  of 
suction.  It  is  quite  a  common  practice  for  orchardists  to  develop  and 
pump  water  for  use  upon  their  lands  where  it  can  be  developed  in  that 
way.  Many  10-acre  orchards  have  $2000  invested  in  a  pumping  plant. 
My  pumping  plant  cost  $4400 ;  it  is  one  of  the  indispensable  invest- 
ments necessary  to  land  that  does  not  have  sufficient  subterranean  irri- 
gation near  enough  for  the  roots  of  trees  to  reach  of  their  own  accord. 
Lands  that  have  that  are  rare,  and  very  much  more  valuable  than 
lands  that  you  have  to  sink  wells  on,  and  operate  at  the  expense  that 

267 


SPRING  VALLEY  WATEB  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

930  is  necessary.     In  irrigating  land  in  the  Santa  Clara  Valley,  where 
water  can  be  had  in  this  way,  the  farmers  are  dictated,  not  so  much 
by  the  necessity  for  the  irrigation,  as  by  their  energy  and  the  possible 
cost.    Many  farmers  trust  to  luck  that  it  will  rain  enough  to  save  them 
irrigation,  and  they  will  not  do  it  to  the  extreme  necessities.    A  farmer 
who  seeks  to  produce  the  best  crops  should  irrigate  three  times. 

The  first  thing  one  has  to  do,  in  making  one  of  these  irrigations, 
is  to  make  small  reservoirs  around  the  trees  to  hold  the  water.  Then 
they  pump  the  water  to  these  reservoirs.  Another  method  prevails 
in  sandier  land,  where  percolation  is  readily  absorbed  by  the  land,  by 
what  they  call  the  furrow  method.  In  the  Santa  Clara  Valley  we  use 
the  check  method,  which  is  more  expensive,  but  I  think  irrigates  more 
uniformly.  After  the  water  has  sufficiently  soaked  in,  they  have  to 
knock  down  the  checks  or  reservoirs,  and  cultivate  the  land  briskly  for 
awhile  to  retain  the  moisture  which  they  put  into  it,  as  the  land  would 

931  bake  if  they  did  not  do  that.    All  that  is  avoided  on  land  that  has 
sufficient  sub-irrigation,  and  it  is  of  very  material  advantage  in  having 
land  that  has  the  water  plane  within  the  reach  of  the  roots,  and  yet 
not  too  near  the  surface  to  kill  the  roots.    Different  kinds  of  trees  can 
grow  in  soils  that  have  different  depths.     In  the  prune  business  we 
have  the  rnyrobolin  roots,  which  we  plant  on  lands  containing  water. 
Peach  roots  will  not  grow  so  well  on  land  where  the  water  is  not  near 
the  surface. 

324;  very  desirable,  fine  piece  of  property.  On  account  of  a 
lesser  desirability  on  the  west  end,  I  have  rated  the  whole  land  at  $185 
per  acre,  valuing  the  valley  portion  equal  to  any  other  in  the  valley, 
and  the  hillside  portion — also  very  good — but  by  making  proper  al- 
lowance for  perhaps  a  lesser  valuation  in  the  hillside  portion,  I  think 
the  average  value  could  be  reduced  to  $185  an  acre.  In  arriving  at 
this  estimate  I  did  not  put  figures  upon  separate  portions  of  the  par- 
cel. Any  person  purchasing  at  $185  per  acre  can  calculate  on  that 
piece  from  25  to  50  percent  profit  on  a  re-sale. 

Questioned  by  Master. 

There  has  been  very  little  change  in  those  values  within  the  last 
five  years. 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.    MCCUTCHEN. 

The  irrigated  fruit  land  in  Santa  Clara  Valley  has  had  a  very 

932  fair  market  during  the  past  year.    It  was  better  in  December,  1913. 
The  slacking  up  of  the  demand  has  been,  I  think,  more  on  account  of 
world-wide  and  national  conditions  than  of  any  local  conditions.    Not- 
withstanding that,  fruit  lands  in  Santa  Clara  County  sell  very  freely 
when  one  reduces  the  price  slightly  below  the  customary  prices.    You 
can  get  $1000  an  acre  for  it  very  nicely  now.    The  last  sale  I  remem- 
ber was  $925  an  acre,  for  20  acres,  planted  to  apricots  and  prunes. 
That  was  about  a  month  ago,  and  was  in  the  neighborhood  where  they 

268 


Clayton 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

have  to  go  over  200  feet  for  water,  and  where  the  land  requires  irri- 
gation. 

There  are  two  orchards  of  prune  trees  in  Calaveras  Valley  on 
these  lands.  They  have  been  shamefully  abused,  but  probably  have  933 
been  plowed  and  cultivated  a  little.  The  man  who  purchased  the  crops 
for  several  years  told  me  that  last  year  he  paid  more  than  $6000,  and 
the  year  before  about  $5000  for  the  prunes.  This  year's  crop  he  esti- 
mated to  be  about  100  tons  of  dried  fruit. 

Map  16,  parcel  325;  the  old  Games'  place,  at  the  junction  of  the 
Calaveras  and  Arroyo  Honda  Creek;  some  very  fine  land;  some  hill- 
side, and  some  land  washed  over  by  the  creeks.  Valued  at  an  average 
of  $50  an  acre,  or  $40,000  on  the  whole  place.  The  land  along  the 
Calaveras  Creek  is  readily  worth  $300  an  acre,  as  there  is  a  very  good 
orchard  there  of  prunes  and  pears;  some  25  acres,  and  there  is  still 
good  land  there,  so  that  you  could  possibly  run  it  out  to  make  100  acres  934 
of  orchard.  A  hill  projects  into  that,  dividing  those  two  creeks,  and 
on  that  hill  they  run  some  hay;  north  of  the  Arroyo  Honda  is  the 
south  hillside;  very  good  pasture  there,  but  there  is  also  a  corner  of 
that  where  the  rocks  and  clay  show  through,  and  that  cuts  down  the 
valuation.  In  the  land  that  is  covered  with  gravel,  the  gravel  is  very 
valuable,  as  the  county  will  pay  20  to  25  cents  a  yard  for  it  for  road 
purposes.  In  this  particular  instance,  it  will  only  be  available  for  the 
roads  that  were  within  reach. 

Map  16,  327 ;  called  Adobe  Hill ;  available  for  hay  on  the  upper 
portions.  The  face  of  it  is  steep,  and  would  only  be  available  for 
pasture;  the  soil  is  good,  and  a  little  creek  runs  down  through  there. 
Around  the  place  on  the  side  of  the  gulch,  where  an  old  house  stands, 
there  are  some  hay  lands,  and  it  is  a  desirable  place  in  conjunction 
with  the  adjoining  lands.  This  piece  would  be  very  attractive  to  the  935 
owners  of  the  valley  lands.  80  acres  at  $40  an  acre,  $3200. 

Map  16,  328;  hard  piece  to  appraise  for  agricultural  purposes. 
It  is  largely  the  north  hillside  running  down  into  the  bed  of  the 
Arroyo  Honda,  covered  with  brush  and  wood.  Its  value  lies  in  con- 
nection with  the  adjoining  land,  to  give  seasonal  feed  when  the  opens 
have  been  eaten  off  and  possible  feed  is  scarce.  Added  to  any  of  the 
adjoining  places  it  was  worth  $15  an  acre,  $3000. 

Map  16,  329 ;  little  40-acre  tract  adjoining  the  last  piece ;  has 
water  and  a  portion  of  it  can  be  used.  I  have  put  $1000  for  the  40 
acres.  My  explanation  for  putting  that  at  $25,  and  the  other  at  $15, 
is  that  this  piece  faces  the  south,  which  makes  a  material  difference 
in  feeding,  and  this  is  right  below  section  19,  which  is  a  celebrated 
fine  "feeder.  The  fact  that  one  of  these  pieces  of  land  can  be  used  in 
connection  with  other  land,  makes  a  material  difference  in  the  valua-  936 
tion.  For  instance,  that  40  acres  in  329,  you  cannot  do  anything  with 
alone,  but  it  is  absolutely  needed  in  conjunction  with  other  pieces. 

269 


SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

*  Vd*i;  there  are  three  sections  that  dominate  that  entire  ridge; 
19,  20  and  21.  This  is  19,  and  is  the  lower  of  these  fine  feed  sections, 
and  has  a  higher  value  than  the  one  higher  up  the  ridge,  because  it 
dominates  them,  and  cattle  feed  on  it  longer.  I  put  a  valuation  of  $20 
an  acre  on  those.  I  have  known  two  men  to  make  moderate  fortunes 
on  those  ownerships  right  in  there. 

E-241 ;  240  acres  at  $25  an  acre ;  contains  a  small  amount  of  the 
high-grade  valley  lands  in  that  neighborhood.  The  soil  is  good,  and 
there  is  a  creek  runs  out  of  it.  The  upper  reaches  have  very  fine  feed, 
making  it  a  desirable  piece  for  a  cattle  man. 

p-268 ;  a  portion  on  Map  16,  and  a  portion  on  Map  18 ;  160  acres 
rolling  land,  open  fine  feed;  formerly  part  of  the  Castle  ownership. 
It  is  the  lower  reaches  of  a  ridge  that  runs  back  a  number  of  miles. 
I  am  talking  now  about  that  piece  up  in  30,  on  page  18,  at  the  top  in 

937  red  color ;  and  this  in  32,  and  this  down  here  in  4,  all  running  up  that 
Marsh  road  ridge ;  then  this  221  acres  is  a  little  lower  down ;  has  more 
hay  fields  on  it,  and  some  barns,  but  in  this  grouping  those  two  have 
been  separated  and  put  into  480  acres  at  $25,  and  221  at  $30;  there 
is  readily  that  much  increased  value  in  that  lower  piece,  on  account 

938  of  the  location,  accessibility,  more  acres  of  hay  land  and  some  improve- 
ments.   Following  those,  you  will  find  160  acres,  and  643  acres,  under 
the  same  number  which  I  have  valued  at  $20  an  acre ;  that  constitutes 
the  four  pieces  of  the  Castle  holdings.    The  160  acre  piece  is  on  both 
Maps  16  and  18,  and  you  can  see  it  by  the  section  number  30. 

Map  16,  W-268;  that  is  on  the  other  side  of  the  valley,  and  is 
known  as  the  Weller  place;  has  the  largest  spring  around  our  valley 
hills,  which  would  irrigate  and  make  alfalfa  available  on  quite  a  ter- 
ritory. I  have  been  informed  there  is  180  to  200  acres  tillable.  There 

939  is  some  very  rich  land.    Many  years  ago  I  saw  some  Portuguese  farm- 
ers have  such  a  crop  on  one  of  those  flats  that  they  had  to  use  relays 
of  horses  to  make  the  mower  travel  fast  enough  for  the  sickle-bar  to 
cut  the  hay;  that  indicates  a  very  strong,  heavy  crop.     The  pasture 
lands  are  good.    There  is  some  brush  land.    It  is  a  very  salable  place, 
and  I  have  put  a  valuation  of  $35  an  acre  on  the  whole  piece.    You  will 
find  many  purchasers  at  that  figure.     There  is  no  portion  of  W-268 
on  Map  18- A. 

Map  16,  Y-268 ;  only  good  for  wood  and  pasture.  It  is  steep. 
Very  little  is  open,  and  very  little  is  cultivable.  $15  an  acre,  total 
$1800.  Its  usefulness  would  consist  in  being  used  by  some  of  the  ad- 
joining tracts,  where  the  cattle  could  feed  at  such  times  as  the  grass 
feed  is  short  on  the  ranges.  Pomeroy  Creek  runs  down  through  it. 

Map  18,  321 ;  very  nice ;  runs  across  the  valley,  but  the  hillsides 

940  make  the  ranch  very  desirable.     Subdividing  that  according  to  this 
map,  the  valley  itself  is  very  rich.    There  is  an  orchard  of  about  15 
acres  on  the  bank  of  the  creek,  and  back  of  that  orchard  is  very  rich 
hay -land,  capable  of  being  an  orchard.     That  is  the  most  southerly 

270 


Clayton 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

upper  prune  orchard,  and  is  more  neglected  than  the  other  one.  It 
has  a  fair  crop  of  prunes  on  it,  but  the  trees  look  barky  and  scaley. 
In  my  opinion,  412  acres  could  be  planted  to  fruit.  I  have  got  that 
down  at  $225  an  acre,  and  that  is  too  low.  Describing  it ;  the  easterly 
end,  where  these  two  40s  run  up  into  a  kind  of  a  chimney  on  the  hill- 
side, are  pastures,  but  taking  the  ranch  as  an  individual  proposition, 
that  is  an  advantage,  then  all  the  valley  is  very  rich.  It  will  raise 
anything  that  is  raised  in  Santa  Clara  County,  and  probably  would 
excell  any  land  that  could  be  found  in  that  county,  both  for  richness 
and  for  moisture.  The  subterreanean  water  is  very  good.  Going 
west,  the  hay  fields  are  very  desirable,  and  very  fine.  They  ought  to 
sell  for  $125  an  acre  just  as  they  are,  irrespective  of  the  adjoining 
lands.  Going  above  that,  near  the  top  of  the  ridge,  there  is  possibly 
100  acres  now  used  for  pasture,  of  which  a  portion  could  be  put  into 
hay  and  grain  and  corn,  beets  and  other  crops  of  that  nature.  I  valued  941 
the  whole  of  that  ranch  at  $125  an  acre. 

Map  18,  330;  very  fine  piece  of  property.  $200  an  acre  as  an 
entirety.  The  valley  lies  between  the  reservoir  lines.  The  hills  above 
the  level  are  very  good ;  rolling  land,  not  hilly ;  all  tillable  and  raise 
the  finest  kind  of  crops.  There  is  good  stubble  on  it  today.  The  crops 
never  fail.  This  has  been  the  means  of  making  one  or  two  fortunes. 
I  valued  this  at  $200  an  acre,  as  against  the  180  acres  in  321  at  $125 
per  acre,  because  the  180  acres  are  not  the  same  variety  of  soils  and 
usefulness  as  in  330,  and  that  piece  is  not  in  the  same  class  of  land  as 
this  land.  They  took  off  the  hay  crop  on  this  piece,  and  then  planted 
it  to  corn,  about  the  first  two  weeks  of  June,  and  this  land  is  particu- 
larly desirable.  As  an  orchard  land  proposition,  I  could  almost  assure  942 
a  sale  at  $300  an  acre  for  the  portions  that  would  be  in  the  level,  and 
running  up  upon  the  rolling  flats,  from  $150  to  $200  an  acre.  That 
land  will  produce  25  tons  of  beets  per  acre,  and  beets  this  year  are  $6. 
Ordinarily  they  run  from  $4  to  $5  per  ton. 

Map  18,  331 ;  is  rising  land,  not  all  level ;  does  not  have  the  same 
adobe  nature,  and  is  a  little  more  of  clay  with  fine  gravel  in  it.  The 
land  is  deep,  and  in  the  creek  banks  I  noticed  that  the  soil  is  good  and 
deep.  Good  orchard  land,  but  not  the  highest  grade.  Not  as  good  as 
the  land  north  of  it.  The  entire  160  acres  would  be  available  for  or- 
chard purposes.  That  is  as  good  land  as  in  Santa  Clara  that  is  now 
in  orchard,  and  that  sells  from  $350  to  $400  an  acre  when  developed. 
I  valued  that  piece  at  $175  per  acre. 

Map  17,  217-B,  640  acres;  lies  on  north  side  of  Arroyo  Honda  943 
Creek,  and  has  a  south  slope ;  pasture  land.  The  lower  portions  running 
down  near  the  creek  are  brushy.  South  of  the  creek  is  brushy  and 
steeper.  I  valued  the  whole  place  at  $15  an  acre.  It  would  have  to 
be  taken  in  conjunction  with  the  adjoining  places  to  get  the  grazing 
necessary  to  run  the  whole  year  around. 

Questioned  by  Master. 

271 


Clayton 


944-945 


946 


947 


SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

It  joins  the  Castle  property  in  section  32,  which  I  valued  at  $20, 
and  is  on  the  upper  corner  of  Map  18. 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY   MR.   MCCUTCHEN. 

Map  18-A,  241-C ;  many  ravines ;  a  great  deal  of  brush  and  wood ; 
heavily  wooded.  The  falls  of  the  Arroyo  Honda  are  located  on  this 
piece.  Taken  in  conjunction  with  the  adjoining  lands,  I  have  valued 
it  at  $15  an  acre.  There  is  demand  in  Santa  Clara  County  for  prop- 
erties for  grazing  purposes  that  cannot  be  supplied.  I  have  not  kept 
a  record  of  actual  sales  of  similar  lands  in  Santa  Clara  County,  but 
I  can  mention  the  Henry  place  on  the  Llagas,  sold  to  a  man  named 
Henry  Bennetii ;  that  bears  no  comparison  whatever  with  this  though, 
so  far  as  quality  is  concerned,  because  it  does  not  have  the  quality — 
that  was  at  $25  an  acre. 

Questioned  by  Master. 

It  is  located  on  the  Llagas  in  Santa  Clara  County,  just  south  of 
New  Almaden. 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  MCCUTCHEN. 

A  tract  of  approximately  3000  acres  on  the  rolling  hills,  between 
or  west  of  Perry's  Station,  15  miles  south  of  San  Jose,  for  $90,000. 
The  only  valley  land  on  this  piece  was  about  150  acres  in  a  little  can- 
yon. That  was  cosidered  a  cheap  price. 

The  sale  of  the  Snell  Ranch,  in  Hall's  Valley,  to  Bob  Morrow,  for 
$75,000  for  5000  acres.  That  is  rolling  land,  with  only  a  percentage 
of  acres  of  grain  land.  It  is  a  fine  ranch,  and  was  a  very  cheap  price ; 
foreclosure  of  mortgage  necessitated  the  man  selling.  If  the  floor  of 
the  Calaveras  Valley  proper  could  be  used  by  the  cattle  men,  it  would 
increase  the  number  of  head  that  could  be  run  on  these  ranges  very 
materially. 

I  think  the  Calaveras  has  a  better  rainfall  than  this  land  on  the 
westerly  side  of  the  Santa  Clara  Valley;  the  3000  acre  ranch  I  have 
spoken  of. 

Map  18,  241-D ;  lies  on  both  sides  of  the  Marsh  road ;  rolling  hills ; 
some  canyons  with  brush  in  them,  but  the  majority  of  the  land  is  the 
tops  of  the  hills.  Very  good  feed;  in  conjunction  with  the  adjoining 
places,  I  put  a  value  of  $30  an  acre  on  that,  guided  by  the  quality  of 
the  feed  and  the  amount  of  it,  and  the  south  hillside.  Consists  of 
244.22  acres. 

Map  18,  268-a ;  15  acres ;  a  little  piece  on  the  Weller  road,  valued 
at  $35  an  acre ;  too  small  to  be  much  unless  taken  in  conjunction  with 
some  of  the  adjoining  ranches.  Adjoins  a  very  good  ranch,  and  I 
think  the  neighbors  would  pay  $35  or  $40  an  acre  for  it  to  get  it  as 
pasturage,  and  for  what  they  could  get  out  of  the  level  places. 

Map  18,  268-b;  fine  piece  of  land;  on  top  of  the  hills  lying  be- 
tween the  Laguna  and  Calaveras  Valley.  Has  persistantly  produced 
good  crops.  A  portion  of  it  lies  south  of  the  Calaveras  road,  but  that 
is  not  cropped  this  year.  The  head  of  the  canyon  runs  up  in  there. 

272 


Clayton 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

The  small  piece,  odd  shaped,  along  the  Calaveras  road,  above  the 
Laguna  School  House,  is  taken  in  connection  with  that.  On  account 
of  these  two  pieces,  which  are  not  of  similar  value,  as  the  balance  of 
it,  I  put  a  valuation  of  $75  per  acre  on  that.  The  portion  over  here, 
between  the  road  and  268-a,  will  sell  for  from  $100  to  $125  an  acre; 
it  is  just  a  question  of  the  proportionate  areas  of  these  less  valuable 
carrying  down  the  price,  that  I  put  it  down  at  $75  an  acre  for  the 
whole  piece ;  that  is  a  low  valuation. 

Map  18,  268-c ;  known  as  the  Levy  place/  Rolling,  hilly,  not 
steep.  A  little  valley  by  itself,  and  capable  of  being  tilled  for  hay, 
grain  and  portions  of  it  for  beets,  corn  and  potatoes,  etc.  A  very 
fairly  good  quality  of  land,  valued  at  $75  an  acre.  There  are  places  948 
where  the  soil  is  of  sufficient  depth  to  sustain  fruit  trees,  and  could 
be  used  for  fruit  raising.  There  is  about  a  quarter  of  a  mile,  or  40 
acres  between  this  piece  and  the  young  apricot  orchard  to  which  I 
referred. 

Map  17,  268-e ;  there  are  three  or  four  pieces  in  that  parcel.  The 
320-acre  piece  is  the  crest  of  the  ridge  in  section  20,  where  the  feed 
is  so  fine.  Valued  at  $25  an  acre.  One  or  two  people  have  made 
fortunes  in  running  cattle  there. 

The  next  piece  in  that  parcel,  82.88  acres  on  Map  18,  is  good 
rolling  land ;  nearly  all  of  it  plowed  this  year  and  cropped  by  tenants. 
It  has  good  soil  on  it.  In  conjunction  with  that  there  is  a  little  spot 
on  the  County  Road  that  had  to  be  bought  in  order  to  get  a  right  of  949 
way  out;  that  represents  an  acre  or  two.  I  put  that  at  a  conserva- 
tive price  at  $75  an  acre.  Can  be  used  for  beets,  corn,  hay,  grain  and 
dairying. 

Map  18-A,  268-e;  a  full  section,  section  36;  valued  at  $12  an 
acre  because  of  the  distance,  and  the  crest  to  the  north  hillside  being 
in  brush.  A  portion  of  it  is  on  both  sides  of  the  road  on  top  of  the 
ridge.  The  northern  portion  runs  down  into  Alameda  Creek,  and  is 
not  quite  so  good.  A  place  on  the  other  side  of  Black  Mountain  in 
that  vicinity,  and  which  has  no  comparison  whatever  in  value ;  harder 
to  reach ;  very  difficult  to  carry  cattle  all  the  year  round,  sold  for  $6 
an  acre. 

Map  18,  268-f ;  85.63  acres  in  section  36,  known  as  Maggie  King 
place ;  not  too  good.  A  ridge  runs  up  the  middle  of  it  that  is  capable 
of  being  farmed.  Two  canyons  that  take  up  too  much  in  proportion 
to  the  size  of  the  land.  Valued  at  $70  an  acre.  A  good  piece  for  the  950 
adjoining  places,  more  than  its  own  individual  valuation.  I  would 
say  about  one-third  of  it  can  be  plowed.  Two  ridges,  one  along  side 
the  road,  and  one  in  the  middle,  have  been  plowed.  The  place  has 
supported  a  family  for  a  long  time,  with  careful  economizing  and  so 
on.  It  could  readily  be  sold  for  $5000  as  a  family  supporting  home 
place. 

Map  18,  268-g,  containing  160  acres;  rolling  land,  but  not  steep 

273 


Clayton 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

except  in  one  place.  There  is  nice  running  water.  It  is  in  Section  1, 
and  has  had  some  orchards  upon  it.  The  buildings  have  been  re- 
moved, and  the  man  that  lived  there  supported  his  family  and  after- 
wards left  with  quite  a  little  fortune.  Capable  of  raising  hay,  grain, 
dairying,  cattle  and  such  things.  Fruit  can  be  grown  there.  There 
are  two  badly  neglected  orchards  there  now.  Not  of  much  value  today, 
but  which  give  evidence  that  the  land  will  produce  fruit.  Valued  at 
$75  an  acre. 

Map  18,  268-h,  120  acres;  rolling  land;  spots  in  it  that  can  raise 

951  hay,  grain,  vineyard  and  orchard.    Appraised  at  $40  an  acre.    About 
one-third  tillable. 

Map  18,  268-i,  273.24  acres;  a  very  nice  ranch;  a  typical  Portu- 
guese ranch.  They  can  raise  everything  there;  rolling,  but  not  steep. 
Comparatively  level;  some  orchard  trees  in  there  now.  They  raise 
corn,  and  they  can  raise  potatoes,  hay  and  grain.  They  do  dairying. 

952  A  very  good  place.    Valued  at  $60  an  acre. 

Map  18,  268-j,  80  acres  in  Section  31 ;  very  good  property ;  quite 
a  percentage  under  hay  cultivation.  All  of  it  can  be  except  just  a 
few  acres.  Valued  at  $85  an  acre. 

Map  18,  268-k,  80  acres;  those  two  places  go  together,  and  are 
known  as  the  William's  place.  They  have  the  best  improvements  upon 
them  today  of  the  range.  There  was  hay  grown  this  year.  Valued 
at  $85  an  acre. 

Questioned  by  Master. 

I  have  not  included  the  improvements.  They  add  a  value  to  it, 
because  of  the  fact  that  the  barns  can  hold  the  hay. 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.    MCCUTCHEN. 

I  have  not  put  a  valuation  on  the  improvements. 

Map  18,  268-e,  321.44  acres;  the  John  Carrick  property.  Upper 
portion  rolling  land,  on  which  there  is  a  crop  of  hay  this  year;  little 
more  gravelly  than  in  other  parts  of  the  lands  appraised;  ravines 
there  and  some  wood.  On  account  of  the  water  it  is  a  very  good 

953  cattle  place.    Valued  at  $75  an  acre.    About  40%  of  it  tillable. 

Map  18,  268-m,  180  acres;  adjoins  the  last  piece,  and  naturally 
goes  with  it.  Taken  in  conjunction  with  it,  it  is  valued  at  $50  an  acre. 
By  itself  would  be  considered  inaccessible,  and  not  attractive.  More 
or  less  steeply  rolling;  not  over  20%  of  it  has  been  in  hay.  I  don't 
think  that  is  the  maximum,  but  it  would  be  hard  to  till  more.  Valued 
at  $50  an  acre. 

Map  18,  268-n,  58%  acres,  Section  8;  called  the  Ferreria  piece. 
A  little  piece  near  the  top  of  the  hills ;  has  a  value  as  hay  land,  cattle, 
dairying  and  fruit  land  to  a  lesser  degree.  Valued  at  $40  an  acre. 

Map  18,  268-0;  a  little  irregular  piece  adjoining,  which  would 
not  be  considered  of  much  value  for  agricultural  purposes.  Has  a 
value  which  might  be  recognized,  however,  and  that  is,  it  is  a  poach- 
er's paradise;  a  little  piece  of  property  set  in  there  where  Joseph  D. 

274 


Clayton 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

Grant  has  a  fine  protected  quail  and  deer  country  on  one  side,  and 
the  Spring  Valley  has  the  same  on  the  other.  It  is  a  spot  anybody 
would  like  to  shoot  on,  and  would  pay  $300  or  $400  for  it  just  to  have 
it  to  shoot  on.  Valued  at  $40  an  acre,  or  about  $360. 

The  Rouse  property  was  sold  in  part  trade.  $5000  cash,  and  the  954 
house  and  lot  taken  in  part  trade,  and  that  Bonetti  place  on  the  Llagas, 
3,670  acres,  about  150  acres  under  immediate  cultivation,  and  350  or 
possibly  more,  that  was  sold  for  $75,000  at  one  time,  and  $110,000  at 
another.  The  $75,000  was  cash,  with  $41,000  mortgage,  and  the 
$110,000  was  part  trade. 

Map  18-A,  q-268,  on  the  Arroyo  Honda,  just  above  the  point 
where  the  water  level  of  the  dam  will  bring  the  water  to;  consists  of 
a  hillside  there,  with  a  good  deal  of  timber  on  it.  Valued  at  $12  per 
acre.  We  have  an  offer  of  $25  an  acre  for  that  for  camping  and 
hunting  purposes. 

Maps  17  and  18-A,  r-268 ;  referring  to  north  half  of  Section  28, 
320  acres,  I  valued  that  at  $12  per  acre.  Some  rock  on  it,  but  is 
grazing  land  almost  exclusively.  The  half-section  in  the  north  half  955 
of  Section  34  has  a  southern  exposure;  good  grass;  fairly  open,  al- 
though the  lower  portions  run  into  the  heads  of  the  gulches.  Ap- 
praised at  $15  an  acre. 

The  quarter  section  which  is  the  southwest  of  22,  right  on  the  line 
dividing  the  counties,  has  a  portion  that  runs  down  to  the  road ;  quite 
steep;  and  some  flats  on  the  northern  portion,  with  some  hay  stand- 
ing. Appraised  at  $10  an  acre. 

Map  17,  t-268,  280  acres  in  Section  26;  runs  along  the  highest 
parts  of  the  ridge ;  is  good  grazing  land,  and  a  portion  of  it  runs  into 
a  canyon ;  quite  heavily  wooded.  Appraised  at  $10  an  acre. 

Map  18-A,  v-268,  168  acres,  on  southwest  quarter  of  Section  34; 
down  in  the  Arroyo  Honda  Gorge;  heavily  covered  with  standing 
trees ;  has  some  rich  little  flats.  There  formerly  was  an  orchard  there. 
The  same  party  made  us  an  offer  of  $25  an  acre  on  that  for  camping, 
hunting,  etc.  Valued  at  $15  an  acre,  and  will  have  to  be  taken  in 
conjunction  with  other  properties  adjoining  to  get  at  its  value,  as 
it  is  down  in  the  bottom  of  the  gulch,  and  kind  of  steep.  956 

v-268,  the  480-acre  piece ;  a  little  further  up  creek ;  more  broken 
with  gulches.  Appraised  at  $6  an  acre.  I  put  that  down  at  the 
minimum  that  I  think  any  of  those  lands  ought  to  be  appraised  for. 

Map  18-A,  w-268;  in  the  bottom  of  the  Arroyo  Honda;  steep; 
lots  of  trees  on  it ;  brush ;  good  hunting  ground ;  also  good  for  cattle ; 
camping  privileges  other  than  cattle;  some  rocks.  It  has  to  be  used 
in  conjunction  with  other  property.  The  same  party  offered  $25  an 
acre  for  it  for  hunting  grounds.  I  valued  it  at  $15  an  acre.  There 
is  feed  on  it. 

Map  18-A,  x-268,  160.72  acres,  valued  at  $6  per  acre;  east  half 
of  the  east  half  of  Section  2 ;  part  of  a  cattle  range. 

275 


Clayton 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

Maps  18  and  16,  X-268;  the  Santos,  formerly  the  Sox  place; 
those  are  the  tops  of  the  hills  on  the  westerly  side  of  Calaveras  Valley ; 
75  to  100  acres  cultivable ;  good  feed  and  pasture  country.  Valued  at 
$35  an  acre. 

Map  18,  y-268,  160  acres ;  is  up  on  the  ridge  on  the  southwest 

957  quarter  of  Section  32 ;  rolling  land,  with  heavy  pasture  grass ;  around 
corral  near  the  road,  and  quite  a  percentage  of  it  has  been  plowed  to 
hay;  very  good  pasture. 

Map  17,  H-268,  320  acres ;  the  north  half  of  20.  Part  of  it  very 
superior  grazing  land,  and  assists  the  adjoining  properties  as  a  cattle 
running  field.  Appraised  at  $25  an  acre. 

Map  18,  parcel  Z-268 ;  rolling  land ;  some  hay  land ;  good  pasture 
land,  and  I  know  that  it  supported  a  man  there  for  a  good  many 
years.  Valued  at  $35  an  acre. 

Map  18- A,  345,  79.32  acres ;  lies  at  the  head  of  the  valley ;  has  not 
been  cultivated  for  years,  but  there  is  a  portion  that  can  be  culti- 
vated. The  soil  is  not  as  strong  as  the  valley  land  proper.  Valued 
at  $55  an  acre. 

Map  17,  s-268,  80  acres;  south  half  of  the  southeast  quarter  of 
22;  is  not  so  good;  good  grazing  on  it  between  the  brush.  A  little 
steeper.  Valued  at  $10  an  acre. 

Questioned  by  Master. 

It  is  all  in  the  Alameda  Creek  side  below  the  crest.     The  road 

958  runs  pretty  nearly  to  the  top,  but  this  place  is  reached  by  the  other 
road  that  runs  down  through  the  blue.  There  is  some  hay  field,  a  pretty 
good  house  and  buildings  that  are  occupied  by  the  tenants. 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  MCCUTCHEN. 

This  piece  is  reached  direct  from  the  Oak  Ridge  Road,  which  ex- 
tends through  r-268-blue-,  and  that  is  the  easiest  way  to  reach  it. 
There  might  be  others. 

Map  17,  n-268,  160  acres,  and  strictly  a  pasture  property.  It  is 
quite  heavily  wooded  on  lower  portion ;  cut  up  by  the  gulches.  Not  of 
much  value  by  itself,  but  in  conjunction  with  the  other  ranges,  ap- 
praised at  $10  an  acre. 

Map  17,  E-268,  320  acres ;  I  did  not  go  to  see  that,  as  the  best  way 
to  see  it  is  through  spy  glasses.  It  is  in  the  north  half  of  Section  8. 
Has  splendid  feed,  and  a  south  exposure.  The  other  pieces  of  E-268, 

959  and  of  F-268  right  beneath  it,  has  had  the  grass  reserved  by  the  ten- 
ant, who  is  farming  it  for  later  feed.    Very  fine  feed  for  that  ridge; 
which  is  a  controlling  factor.    When  I  referred  to  a  spy  glass  being 
necessary  to  find  it,  I  referred  to  the  little  parcel  of  E-268,  in  the 
northwest  quarter  of  Section  12. 

Questioned  by  Master. 

I  appraised  that  other  320-acre  piece,  the  north  half  of  Section 
8,  at  $25  an  acre.  This  small  piece  is  isolated. 

276 


Clayton 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 
DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  MCCUTCHEN. 

The  140  acres  in  the  northwest  quarter  of  16,  I  appraised  at  $25 
an  acre.  Good  feed,  and  has  good  range  for  the  supporting  of  other 
places  about  it.  Some  buildings  upon  it,  not  now  occupied.  "Well 
worth  the  price  I  put  on  it. 

Map  17,  f-268,  two  pieces;  taking  the  320-acre  piece  first,  this  is 
covered  with  strong  feed;  has  a  south  exposure,  and  I  valued  it  at 
$25  an  acre.  The  20-acre  piece  has  an  orchard  on  it,  and  an  extensive 
little  vineyard  of  very  vigorous  growth,  and  hay  land,  and  is  occupied 
now  by  young  Mendoza,  who  rents  these  other  lands.  It  has  quite  a 
little  pond  on  it,  three  or  four  feet  deep,  and  is  pretty  country  for 
selling,  and  to  add  value  to  the  adjoining  places. 

Map  17,  G-268,  480  acres;  east  half  of  the  southwest  quarter  of  96° 
16.  The  portion  which  has  the  south  slope,  and  is  on  the  north  side 
of  the  Alameda  Creek,  is  very  good  pasture ;  somewhat  broken.  Some 
oak  wood  on  it  which  is  possible  to  get  at  and  out.  The  south  side  of 
Alameda  Creek  is  not  so  accessible,  and  the  wood  is  not  so  easily 
gulched  out.  Appraised  at  $15  an  acre.  When  I  say  I  appraised 
these  lands  at  the  figures  which  I  have  placed  upon  them,  I  mean  in 
comparison  with  other  properties  they  bear  that  relative  value;  they 
would  sell  for  the  prices  I  have  appraised  them  at,  and  by  what  other 
means  a  person  judges  property  to  be  worth  anything,  they  are  worth 
that  money,  actual,  practical  valuation,  taken  from  knowledge  of 
what  people  will  pay  for  such  property. 

(Counsel  for  Defendant  stated  there  would  be  no  objection  to       961 
Counsel  for  Plaintiff  putting  in  a  tabulation  from  Mr.  Clayton's  testi- 
mony of  the  prices  and  the  aggregate  values  put  by  him  on  the  lands 
which  will  be  within  the  Calaveras  Reservoir  site%) 

CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY   MR.   STEINHART. 

Parcel  268-i,  the  Spring  Valley  paid  $12,100  for  that,  as  near  as  952 
I  can  remember,  or  $46  an  acre.  It  was  bought  within  the  last  four 
years,  and  the  Spring  Valley  supplied  me  with  the  purchase  price.  I 
paid  no  attention,  whatever,  to  the  fact  that  the  Spring  Valley  only 
paid  $46  an  acre.  I  have  the  figures  of  the  different  purchasers  here 
and  I  have  not  even  considered  them.  I  did  not  consider  the  value 
placed  on  the  land  by  the  people  who  sold  to  the  Spring  Valley. 

Parcel  268-p;  valued  at  $20  and  $25.  The  Spring  Valley  paid 
$16,500  for  the  whole  piece,  which  was  very  low  indeed,  and  the  party 
that  we  bought  them  from  has  considered  that  we  robbed  him.  Clay- 
ton &  Co.  handled  some  of  these  matters  for  the  Spring  Valley.  953 

268-n;  I  valued  that  at  $40  an  acre,  and  the  Spring  Valley  paid 
$1265  for  it,  or  $21.72  an  acre.  Clayton  &  Co.  bought  that.  I  don't 
know  the  exact  year. 

268-y;  Clayton  &  Co.  bought  that,  and  paid  $2500  for  it,  or  $15.62 
an  acre. 

277 


Clayton 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

268-u  j  Clayton  &  Co.  bought  that,  and  paid  $1000 ;  that  is  $6  and 

964  a  fraction  an  acre.    That  was  a  case  of  good  work. 

2684;  Clayton  &  Co.  bought  that  for  $2125,  or  $7.59  an  acre. 
When  buying  property  like  that,  you  have  to  accommodate  yourself 
to  several  things.  It  is  harder  to  buy  it  than  to  sell  it.  You  have  to 
do  rapid  work  from  one  neighbor  to  another,  so  that  they  do  not  know 
what  the  others  are  getting.  It  is  not  usual  for  all  the  neighbors  not 
to  know  the  value  of  their  lands,  but  there  was  unexcelled  work  done 
in  the  purchase  of  these  properties,  and  they  were  kept  absolutely  in 
ignorance  of  the  character  of  their  properties.  Referring  to  the  for- 
tunes that  I  mentioned  as  being  made  in  that  neighborhood,  the  pieces 
that  you  have  brought  up  are  not  comparable,  as  they  are  sufficiently 
isolated  so  that  the  owners  could  not  do  as  well  as  they  could  if  they 
had  the  adjoining  land. 

268-r ;  Spring  Valley  paid  $6500  for  that,  or  $8.12  an  acre. 

965  268-s;  adjacent,  cost  $700,  or  $8.75  an  acre.    Everyone  of  these 
people  are  non-residents  of  that  district.    We  did  not  find  them  there. 
They  rented  them  for  nominal  sums,  and  none  excepting  those  who 
rented  the  whole  range,  could  afford  to  range  them.     It  is  possible 
that  one  man  may  have  rented  more  than  one  piece  in  Calaveras,  but 
not  as  regards  these  places.    The  proposition  in  regard  to  that  would 
be  that  it  takes  a  large  amount  of  money  to  stock  the  property.    Cattle 
cost  a  lot  of  money,  and  unless  they  have  extremely  long  leases,  they 

966  could  not  afford  to  put  that  much  capital  in  there  without  positively 
knowing  they  could  support  them.    They  knew  it  was  fine  cattle  coun- 
try, and  that  they  could  support  them  if  they  had  the  property  so 
strongly  leased  that  it  would  warrant  them  in  investing  money  under 
such  propositions. 

268-i,  Map  18,  Priesker  place.  The  man  who  had  worked  the  place 
had  acquired  it  and  bought  it  up,  and  died,  leaving  a  wife  with  a 
family.  The  family  had  grown  up  and  did  not  want  to  live  there,  so 
she  was  obliged  to  rent  it,  and  commenced  dealing  with  tenants  who 
liked  to  make  good  bargains,  which  caused  her  to  determine  to  sell 
out.  We  had  a  hard  time  getting  the  price  down,  but  we  finally  got 
it  down  to  $46,  or  something  like  that,  and  that  is  what  we  were 

967  employed  for. 

Coyote  Station  district  runs  from  the  12  mile  house  to  the  16 
mile  house  approximately.  The  belt  of  choice  prune  land  I  spoke 
of  is  in  the  district  from  the  16  mile  house  northward  throughout 

968  the  valley.     The  portion  that  I  wanted  to  exclude  is  the  portion 
from  16  mile  house  to  Gilroy.    16  mile  house  is  about  14  miles  from 
Gilroy,  and  I  think  about  5  miles  north  of  Morgan  Hill,  and  about 
2  miles  north  of  Madrone.    I  am  acquainted  with  Mr.  Fleming,  the 
manager  of  Griffin-Skelley  Co.,  but  not  with  the  land  that  he  bought 
recently,  nor  do  I  know  what  he  paid  for  it.    I  know  a  bookkeeper 
of  Griffin-Skelley  Co.,  but  do  not  know  his  name,  nor  am  I  acquainted 

278 


Clayton 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

with  the  land  he  bought  in  the  vicinity  of  Coyote,  nor  do  I  know 
what  he  paid  for  it.  I  am  acquainted  with  the  lands  that  were  969 
owned  by  the  Mary  Murphy  Colombat  Estate,  but  I  cannot  recall 
what  those  lands  sold  for.  I  did  not  know.  They  sold  for  from 
$100  to  $200  an  acre  for  prune  lands,  but  not  recently.  I  don't  think 
there  is  anything  there  that  was  sold  for  less  than  $200  an  acre  in 
four  years.  I  am  not  acquainted  with  the  sale  made  to  Mr.  Peppin, 
March  23rd,  1912.  It  is  possible  that  some  of  these  lands  sold  for 
from  $100  to  $125  an  acre  in  1912  and  1913,  but  it  did  not  come  to 
my  knowledge.  There  is  a  big  variation  in  values  there.  I  have 
land  that  I  will  sell  you  right  now,  with  a  vineyard  on  it  five  or  six 
years  old,  this  side  of  Madrone,  for  $150  an  acre.  The  Madrone 
district,  and  the  southerly  end  of  the  Murphy  Colombat  Estate  are 
very  different.  I  don't  think  that  the  Colombat  Estate  land  was  970 
sold  all  together,  but  I  am  not  familiar  with  the  price  of  the 
Murphy-Colombat  Estate  on  the  State  Highway.  Opposite  one 
portion  of  this  estate  is  some  land  recently  sold,  called  the  Sharon 
Subdivision,  at  as  high  as  $275  an  acre.  The  Colombat  Estate  is 
not  the  best  prune  land.  Mr.  Fleming,  manager  of  Griffin-Skelley, 
who  are  buyers  of  prunes,  ought  to  be  a  good  judge  of  prune  lands. 
He  might  have  purchased  his  property  for  speculation,  under  which 
conditions  a  person  does  not  pay  the  same.  I  don't  know  what 
he  bought,  but  I  know  it  could  not  be  the  best  land  in  that  neigh- 
borhood. 

Mr.  Frank  Holmes  is  the  man  who  bought  the  prunes  growing  971 
in  the  Calaveras  Valley  that  I  spoke  of.  I  did  not  inquire  from 
him  when  those  prunes  in  the  Calaveras  Valley  ripened,  and  my  con- 
versation was  very  hurried,  just  before  the  train  left  this  morn- 
ing. Whether  the  prunes  in  the  Calaveras  Valley  ripen  earlier  or 
later  than  the  other  prunes,  I  have  never  thought  that  of  sufficient 
importance  to  inquire  about.  It  would  not  make  any  material  dif- 
ference if  those  prunes  ripened  in  October,  and  it  was  not  possible 
to  dry  them  in  Calaveras  Valley.  It  is  not  an  advantage  to  have 
to  haul  over  such  a  grade  as  you  have  to  haul  to  get  out  of  Cala- 
veras, but  that  particular  haul  is  not  considered  very  strong.  An 
ordinary  hay-load  of  50  bales  would  take  a  good  many  horses  to  972 
haul  over  that  grade. 

The  shrinkage  in  prunes  between  their  green  and  their  dry 
state,  runs  all  the  way  from  21/4  to  3.  Therefore,  if  they  have  to  be 
hauled  in  their  green  state,  the  weight  to  be  hauled  is  just  2^4  or 
3  times  as  much  as  in  their  dry  state,  so  that  if  in  their  dry  state 
there ,were  100  tons  to  be  hauled,  in  their  green  state  there  would 
be  300  tons,  and  that  would  be  somewhat  of  a  disadvantage,  if  they 
were  dried  after  hauling  out  of  the  Calaveras  Valley.  The  elevation 
of  the  pass  through  which  exit  and  entrance  are  made  to  the  valley, 
I  understand  to  be  about  1100  feet. 

279 


Clayton 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

973  Mr.  Holmes  did  not  tell  me  how  the  prunes  ran  last  year,  and 
I  do  not  know  anything  about  the  productivity  of  those  prunes. 
I  know  from  looking  at  them,  that  they  have  produced  heavily.     It 
is  possible  that  a  person  might  be  deceived  in  judging  prunes,  as 
prunes  may  appear  to  be  running  heavy,  but  when  they  dry  out 
their  condition  may  be  quite  different.     I  do  not  know  who  cul- 
tivated that  prune  orchard,  but  Carson  had  them  for  a  number  of 
years,  and  made  quite  a  fortune  out  of  his  ability  to  make  money 
in  that  way.    The  men  who  made  fortunes  out  of  Calaveras  out  of 
grazing  properties,  both  owned  lands  and  rented,  but  I  do  not  know 

974  what  anybody  paid  for  renting  lands  there. 

When  I  spoke  of  Patton  making  quite  a  comfortable  fortune 
there,  by  a  comfortable  fortune  I  mean,  between  $15,000  and 
$25,000.  He  was  there  as  long  as  I  can  remember,  about  15  or  17 
years,  and  if  he  made  $1,000  a  year  net,  he  did  very  well. 

The  southerly  exposures  for  vegetables  and  fruit  are  better, 
and  the  land,  or  hill  that  marks  the  westerly  boundary  line  of  the 
Calaveras  country,  on  the  westerly  side,  has  more  or  less  of  a  south- 
westerly exposure.  On  the  Calaveras  side,  it  has  both  north-easterly 

975  and  easterly  exposure.     The  Portuguese  are  very  careful  about  se- 
lecting a  southerly  slope  to  get  early  vegetables,  but  this  land  of 
Hanson's  goes  right  across  the  little  valley,  and  considerable  of  it 
I  do  not  think  has  so  much  southerly  exposure  as  it  is  easterly.     I 
knew  the  general  location  of  the  land  he  bought  from  Snell,  and 
have  been  over  it,  but  not  recently,  and  I  think  he  paid  $44,000  for 

976  it.     I  loaned  him  the  money  to  buy  it,  but  I  have  forgotten  the 
details.     I  do  not  know  what  was  on  the  place,  nor  how  much  an 
acre  he  paid  for  it  when  he  bought  it.    There  is  good  hay  land,  and 
good  orchard  on  it,  and  there  is  pasture  lands  and  Portuguese  hill- 
side land. 

When  I  spoke  of  the  land  planted  to  prune  orchards  selling  at 
$300  an  acre,  that  was  without  the  orchards  on  it.  The  first  few 
fruits  in  a  prune  orchard  come  in  four  years  in  the  Santa  Clara 
Valley,  but  we  don't  count  on  a  crop,  or  to  get  your  money  back 
before  six  years.  When  we  are  buying  on  speculation,  we  calculate 

977  the  first  six  crops  to  be  the  good  ones.    They  have  only  been  growing 
prunes  now  since  1880,  and  long  experience  shows  that  you  cannot 
tell  when  the  biggest  crop  is  going  to  be.    We  count  on  getting  the 
cost  of  the  work  back,  and  perhaps  a  profit  at  six  years,  and  beyond 
six.    Land  worth  $1000  an  acre,  is  with  a  bearing  orchard,  and  gen- 
erally the  improvements  go  with  it,  so  I  add  about  $600  or  $700  an 
acre  for  the  improvements  and  the  bearing  crop. 

Map  17,  268-u;  is  quite  a  distance  from  the  valley.  The  road 
is  narrow  and  rough.  The  fact  of  its  distance,  and  so  forth,  has  a 
depreciating  value.  The  Coyote  lands  that  I  spoke  about,  is  very 
near  the  State  Highway,  which  is  along  the  railroad.  I  only  know 

280 


Clayton 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

the  Colusa  prune  lands  from  hearsay,  and  my  knowledge  of  the  978 
prune  business  is,  that  the  Santa  Clara  Valley  prunes  command  a 
premium  over  the  Colusa  prunes.  I  do  not  know  what  the  Colusa 
prune  lands  sell  for.  I  am  not  surprised  that  one  of  the  heaviest 
prune  packers  states  that  he  prefers  to  have  the  Colusa  prunes 
than  the  Santa  Clara  prunes,  because  anything  you  can  buy  for 
$20  in  one  place,  and  sell  at  another  place  for  $70  is  preferable. 
That  is  why  he  goes  to  Colusa  to  buy  them  and  comes  to  Santa  Clara 
to  sell  them.  They  are  not  larger  prunes.  The  range  of  prunes  is 
from  20 's,  which  are  quite  rare,  down  to  130's,  which  are  also  not 
too  common.  Santa  Clara  produces  every  one  of  those  grades,  from 
the  best  to  the  poorest. 

268-u;  I  did  not  go  upon  this  parcel,  but  I  went  on  268-t,  not 
only  on  the  road,  but  away  from  the  road.  We  couldn't  tell  just 
where  we  were.  I  cannot  tell  you  just  the  day  that  trip  was  made, 
but  I  have  made  a  number  of  trips  to  refresh  my  memory  on  these 
places  within  the  past  few  weeks.  I  did  not  change  my  valuations, 
however,  within  the  last  two  weeks.  I  made  my  valuations  from  979 
my  general  knowledge  of  the  lands,  and  then  went  over  them  to 
prove  that  I  was  right,  and  I  did  not  change  the  valuations  on  any 
of  those  trips.  I  have  taken  half  a  day  when  I  could  get  it,  and  I 
have  taken  a  whole  day  when  I  could  get  the  time  to  spend  on  these 
trips. 

Map  18-A,  268-x;  I  didn't  get  in  there,  but  you  can  see  that 
very  nicely  from  the  two  sides  that  I  did  get  into. 

268-v;I  did  not  go  on  that  piece,  but  saw  it  from  Section  3,       980 
Section  34,  and  Section  35.    It  is  very  hard  to  get  on  that  property, 
on  account  of  having  to  cross  both  those  canyons. 

268-r;  I  did  go  upon  that  piece.  We  crossed  from  the  road 
down  through  there,  and  the  party  I  was  with  didn't  look  for  any 
trails.  If  he  saw  a  rock  he  would  jump  for  it.  There  is  consider- 
able rock  in  there,  and  the  big  slide  terminates  on  that  parcel.  That 
comes  in  best  when  the  snow  is  on  the  ground.  The  steep  sides  there 
warm  up  quickly.  The  grass  comes  up  quickly,  and  the  animals 
come  earlier  in  there  than  in  other  places,  but  of  course  they  have 
to  be  in  the  neighborhood  to  avail  themselves  of  such  warm  spots. 
In  that  neighborhood  whenever  it  snows  it  snows  all  over.  The 
north  half  of  Section  28  is  considerably  better  land  than  that. 

Questioned  by  Master.  981 

That  is  the  other  268-r  on  Map  17,  and  that  is  south  slope  also, 
and  there  is  good  grazing  in  there  too. 

CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY   MR.   STEINHART. 

I  don't  admit  that  the  $12  land  is  better  than  the  $15  land, 
on  account  of  the  flat  in  the  north  half  of  34.  It  is  more  open  and 
easier  to  reach.  I  cannot  tell  you  where  the  flats  are  by  looking  at 

281 


Clayton 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

the  map,  but  there  are  flats  there,  and  if  I  am  not  mistaken,  it  is 
on  the  site  of  the  old  school  house.  I  can  see  that  one  was  better 
land  than  the  other,  but  I  may  have  got  those  mixed  up  a  little. 
Calling  my  attention  to  them,  as  you  do  now,  there  is  no  question 
but  what  the  north  half  of  28  is  better  than  the  north  half  of  34, 
on  account  of  accessibility,  if  the  two  areas  were  equal.  The  north 

982  half  of  34  is  not  poor  stuff  in  a  grazing  country.     268-r  is  not  as 
poor  as  268-v,  and  just  as  steep.    I  went  on  268-v,  the  160  acre  piece. 

p.  268  Map  18-A,  B8I6;  I  called  that  ridge  the  Marsh  road  district, 

983  but  am  not  acquainted  with  what  the  United  States  Government 
has  seen  fit  to  designate  it  on  the  topographical  map.     One  of  the 
good  ridges  in  Santa  Clara  County  they  have  designated  Poverty 
Ridge.     I  don't  know  where  they  got  such  a  name.     It  is  very 
likely  that  this  happens  to  be  Poverty  Ridge  that  we  are  talking 
about  now.    I  did  not  know  that  this  one  was  called  Poverty  Ridge, 
as  that  is  a  common  name.    Some  of  these  places  they  call  Starva- 
tion Ridge.    I  don't  know  where  Poverty  Ridge  is  in  this  district, 
and  I  went  through  those  sections,  and  in  my  opinion,  this  is  not 
a  bare  and  wind-swept  country,  and  I  disagree  with  the  party  who 
has  the  opinion  that  this  is  some  of  the  poorest  land  in  the  whole 
Mt.  Hamilton  country.    I  don't  think  so. 

984  Map  18-A,  w-268 ;  I  went  up  the  bottom  of  the  creek  into  that, 
and  the  trees  were  so  tall,  and  the  woods  so  heavy  and  thick,  that 
I  could  not  say  much  about  that.     That  is  down  in  the  bottom  of 
the  Arroyo  Honda.     Outside  of  looking  at  it  from  the  adjoining 
places,  I  didn't  get  a  very  good  impression  of  it  by  looking  at  it 
down  there.     I  took  that  in  connection  with  the  adjoining  places, 
and  also  the  fact  that  it  is  a  celebrated  hunting  grounds,  and  a  beau- 
tiful camp. 

Map  18-A,  241-C;  I  went  on  that,  and  crossed  in  and  out  of 
there.  There  is  a  trail  that  runs  through  there,  and  you  get  a  fine 
view  of  the  falls.  I  did  not  include  in  my  values  the  view  of  the 
falls.  I  took  into  consideration  in  valuing  that  at  $15  that  they 
were  pasture  lands,  and  heavily  wooded  property.  Wood  is  of 
good  value,  and  could  be  snaked  out.  San  Jose  buys  a  great  deal 
of  wood,  and  although  the  cost  of  hauling  is  high,  it  means  cash 
to  the  people  there  as  they  sell  it  to  farmers  along  the  road ;  it  does 
not  all  reach  town  by  any  means. 

985  241-C;  there  were  ravines  and  canyons  on  this  parcel,  and  also 
a  slide  there  down  in  the  southeast  quarter.     While  that  slide  is 
very  steep,  it  does  not  make  a  great  deal  of  acreage.     In  including 
bottom  lands,  I  would  go  up  to  the  point — as  a  general  rule — as  far 
as  the  soil  was  deep;  as  the  soil  on  the  hills  and  the  soil  on  the 
valley  is  distinguishable.     I  would  say  that  on  the  opposite  side  of 
the  valley,  the  line  of  demarcation  is  very  slight,  and  the  gradual 
rise  in  the  hills  is  pretty  near  as  good  as  the  valley,  that  is  on  the 

282 


Clayton 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

westerly  side  of  the  valley,  which  is  the  side  as  you  come  in.  The 
soil  is  very  good,  and  it  is  deep.  It  runs  up  the  hill  very  nicely,  and 
is  rich  land.  On  the  easterly  side,  some  of  the  points  that  butt  out 
there  are  steeper,  indicating  shallowness  of  soil,  and  they  are  not 
so  good  as  on  the  other  side.  It  is  not  difficult  to  determine  what  986 
I  valued  and  included  as  bottom  land,  if  you  are  in  the  neighbor- 
hood you  can  kind  of  walk  right  up  to  it.  The  reservoir  line  there 
is  a  little  above  the  bottom  land  line  of  demarcation,  and  its  distance 
below  the  reservoir  line  would  be  different  in  each  case.  I  cannot 
give  the  ranges  from  so  many  feet  to  so  many  feet,  because  if  you 
look  over  in  327,  you  will  find  that  50  feet  is  all  there  should  be 
between  the  reservoir  line  and  the  roadway,  and  the  roadway  runs  987 
along  there  about  the  line  of  good  soil.  In  that  50  feet  there  is  a 
jump,  looking  down  upon  which  you  would  think  was  100  feet, 
and  looking  up  at  it  you  would  think  it  was  about  60  or  75  feet.  I 
have  seen  the  white  fence  posts,  showing  the  level  of  the  reservoir 
line.  This  map  shows  the  elevation  there  to  be  800  feet.  The  Santa 
Clara  Valley  runs  from  nothing  up  to  321  feet,  while  the  floor  of 
the  Calaveras,  I  estimated,  was  about  700  feet.  I  understand  the 
dam  is  going  to  be  300  feet  high,  and  as  the  water  level  must  be 
the  same,  the  lower  portion  of  the  valley  will  be  300  feet  deep,  and 
the  extreme  south  end  would  peter  out  to  nothing.  I  think  that  I 
mentioned  in  some  of  these  places,  between  321  and  330,  on  Map  18, 
the  bottom,  that  land  ran  up  as  high  as  the  contour  line.  I  have 
understood  the  height  of  the  outlet  was  1100  feet,  and  the  floor  of  988 
the  valley  I  estimated  at  700.  On  321  I  ran  my  bottom  land  right 
up  to  the  marking.  In  330  I  would  consider  that  it  was  equally 
desirable  up  to  the  reservoir  line.  In  331  is  a  complete  change  of 
character  of  the  soil.  It  is  quite  uniform  up  to,  and  beyond  the  res- 
ervoir line.  That  is  a  kind  of  clay  soil,  with  lots  of  little  fine  gravel 
in  it.  I  do  not  consider  j-268  and  k-268  the  same  character  of  soil. 
The  fertility  would  diminish  as  you  go  up  the  hill.  My  remembrance 
of  the  soil  in  these  last  two  parcels  is  that  it  is  a  kind  of  a  lightish, 
grayish,  gravelish  mixture.  The  clay  is  the  portion  above  268-j, 
marked  "2".  989 

In  the  valuation  I  included  almost  all  of  parcel  324  as  being 
equally  valuable.  The  easterly  three  40 's  are  actually  more  cul- 
tivatable,  and  having  more  subterranean  moisture  under  it,  it  would 
be  more  productive.  There  is  a  hill  or  two  on  the  westerly  side  of 
324,  but  not  bad.  It  rises  abruptly  until  you  get  into  the  gravelly  990 
part  of  322,  and  then  it  seems  to  change  the  slope  of  the  hills,  and 
run  southward  to  these  adjoining  places  with  a  much  more  modified 
grade. 

322  is  the  blue  one  right  below  327.  In  that  one,  you  will  see 
the  ravine  runs  up  the  hill  quite  a  distance.  As  those  hills  disap- 
pear up  that  canyon  on  that  side,  they  are  all  abrupt,  and  when 

283 


Clayton 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

they  come  out  on  the  other  side,  they  are  not  so  abrupt.  The  land 
in  322  is  fine  land.  I  presume  you  would  not  call  it  bottom  land, 
because  it  does  slope,  but  it  is  of  a  rich  texture,  and  would  carry  a 
value  in  selling  that  would  be  indisputable  without  regard  to  the 
grade.  The  grade  there  is  not  sufficient  to  cause  annoyance  to  a 
farmer,  and  it  could  be  put  under  the  irrigaton  of  that  small  stream 
with  very  little  effort.  The  Potham  piece  is  very  steep,  and  a  por- 
tion of  that  steepness  may  run  into  322,  but  it  would  not  be  so  high 
as  to  stop  the  taking  of  that  water  out  on  levels  as  high  as  one 
would  want  to  go,  to  work  the  valuable  portions,  which  I  think  the 
reservoir  line  there  would  indicate. 

991  (Discussion  between  Counsel  as  to  fairness  to  Witness  in  this 
line  of  questions.) 

There  may  be  some  small  ravines  on  parcel  322,  besides  the 
large  ones.  In  valuing  that  property,  I  did  not  place  much  depre- 
ciation on  the  land  that  is  too  steep  to  be  called  anything  but  pas- 
ture. That  is  beautifully  situated,  and  there  is  enough  water  there 

992  to  use  it  to  the  greatest  degree  of  agricultural  development. 

Map  18,  268-b ;  fairly  light  colored  soil.  While  it  runs  together 
when  it  gets  wet,  it  is  not  of  a  character  that  bakes.  It  must  have 
a  sufficient  amount  of  clay  in  it  to  be  termed  a  clayey  soil.  It  is  fer- 

993  tile  and  has  good  productivity.    That  is  not  a  stiff  clay,  and  there 
may  be  an  outcropping  or  two  of  sandstone,  but  you  cannot  say 
it  is  all  over.     I  know  the  place  called  Monument  Peak,  but  it  is 
not  located  on  that  section.    It  is  2  miles  north  of  that.     This  is  a 
nice  clear  field;  nice  stubble.     Monument  Peak  is  on  Map  16,  in 
Section  21. 

(Mr.  Steinhart:  I  will  withdraw  that  question  as  to  Monument 

994  Peak;  it  is  not  a  fair  question.) 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  MCCUTCHEN. 

Monument  Peak  is  at  least  2^  miles,  in  fact  3  miles  from  this 
land. 

CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY   MR.   STEINHART. 

It  is  not  a  fact  that  that  parcel  has  sandstone  outcroppings 
right  straight  through  that  portion  of  it.  This  is  a  beauiful  field, 
and  in  the  lower  portions  there  is  a  good  picket  fence  around  it. 
As,  to  the  other  portion,  I  cannot  tell  you  how  that  fence  is,  but 
it  is  not  a  fact  that  the  fence  is  a  stone  fence,  composed  entirely  of 
stone  taken  off  of  that  property.  I  do  not  say  that  all  this  land 
may  not  have  any  stone  fence  at  all.  It  is  possible  that  from  the 
Calaveras  road  you  can  see  a  pile  or  two  of  gathered  stones  piled 
up  in  one  or  two  spots.  That  is  a  fine  field,  nice,  and  clean  and  free 
from  stones.  There  is  not  a  noticeable  peak  on  the  land. 

284 


Clayton 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

("Witness  advises  he  was  talking  entirely  of  parcel  268-b  when    994-996 
he  was  asked  if  there  was  a  peak  on  the  parcel,  and  that  the  portion 
by  the  school  house,  across  the  Pueblo  Ranch  line,  has  a  little  rock 
in  it. 

It  developed  that  the  witness  was  talking  of  land  north  of  the 
Calaveras  road,  whereas  the  Counsel  for  Defendant  was  referring 
to  the  portion  south  of  it.) 

SEVENTEENTH  HEARING.       AUGUST  6,  1915. 

Witnesses :    W.  S.  CLAYTON  and  WM.  W.  PARKS. 

Certain  corrections  noted  in  the  inventory  and  in  the  transcript.    997-999 

CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.   STEINHART.  1000-1001 

P-268;  These  parcels  dominated  the  ridge,  and  without  them 
many  lands  would  be  affected  in  value ;  that  is  the  people  who  live 
above  them  would  starve  without  the  very  qualities  that  these 
places  present.  They  cannot  get  all  the  year  round  feed  for  their 
stock.  Different  seasons  require  these  different  elevations  and  the 
changes  in  the  character  of  the  feed  throughout  the  year.  On  the 
higher  places,  the  feed  is  excellent,  at  certain  times  of  the  year.  At 
other  times,  it  would  be  non-profitable. 

The  feed  is  excellent  in  Poverty  Ridge.  On  that  entire  ridge 
it  is  excellent  for  the  year.  The  cattle  are  not  eating  the  grass 
on  these  places  at  present,  because  they  have  eaten  what  they 
wish  in  the  Spring,  and  they  will  come  back  after  that  grass  gets 
soft.  I  cannot  answer  what  season  of  the  year  that  will  be,  but  it 
will  be  when  it  gets  frosty.  My  experience  with  cattle  has  been  in 
lending  money  on  them,  and  watching  them  very  carefully.  I  have  1002 
never  been  in  the  cattle  business,  but  we  loaned  money  to  those 
fellows  in  the  business. 

These  ridges  control  the  upper  reaches  to  the  east,  and  that  is 
why  I  gave  them  the  additional  value,  but  not  only  for  that  reason, 
but  also  because  the  feed  is  better.  It  will  carry  more  cattle. 

Referring  to  Map  16,  268-Y;  when  I  spoke  of  the  other  ranges, 
in  which  the  grass  would  be  short,  I  meant  the  adjoining  tracts, 
where  the  grass  grows  in  the  brush,  and  they  turn  the  cattle  on 
those  lands  when  the  hay  and  grain  are  growing.  The  hay  and  1003 
grain  grows,  speaking  in  broad  terms,  from  the  first  of  December 
to  the  first  of  June,  and  they  are  liable  to  have  cattle  in  there  in 
December,  but  my  own  impression  would  be  that  it  would  be  from 
the  first  of  December  through  until  Spring.  That  would  apply  to 
the  east  side  also  on  p-268,  as  they  would  have  to  turn  their  cattle 
up  there  during  that  season,  as  you  know  feed  is  scant  in  Decem- 

285 


Clayton 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

ber.  Without  personal  knowledge  of  the  month,  however,  I  would 
say  that  December  is  a  little  too  early,  that  it  would  be  about  along 
in  the  middle  of  February  that  they  would  turn  their  cattle  into 

1004  268-p.    Feed  becomes  short  on  the  other  ranges  by  nature,  and  by 
the  number  of  cattle  that  eat  it.    I  should  say  that  with  the  stubble 
of  the  valley,  they  could  run  a  bullock  to  about  four  acres,  and 
without  the  stubble,  they  could  not  do  it  with  less  than  6  to  10 
acres.     I  will  not  get  on  the  subject  of  the  running  of  cattle  on 
land  around  Calaveras,  because  I  do  not  know  the  history  of  the 
different  herds.    You  have  to  take  into  consideration  in  describing 
this  property,  described  as  an  ideal  cattle  range,  that  it  has  not 
been  used  to  its  capacity,  and  the  people  who  have  had  the  farming 
of  the  valley  acreage,  have  not  been  the  people  who  have  been 
farming  the  ranges.     Carson,   a  good  farmer,  was  in  there  for  a 
number  of  years.     He  had  good  horses  and  was  a  hay  man  and 
cattle  man. 

1005  There  is  no  sign  that  the  cattle  are  very  hard  put  for  food  on 
any  of  these  tracts  to  which  I  have  testified  as  being  of  a  very  fine 
nature  cattle  ranges. 

W-268;  The  Portuguese  farmers  that  I  saw  a  good  many  years 
ago,  using  a  relay  of  horses  to  make  the  cutter  travel  fast  enough 
for  the  sickle-bar  to  cut  the  hay  did  not  have  the  extra  horses, 
owing  to  the  steepness  of  the  land.  W-268  is  the  rolling  tops  of 
the  hills  of  Mission  Ridge.  There  are  rocks  projecting  in  a  few 
places.  Canyons  run  up  in  there,  and  you  have  to  farm  in  between 

1006  such  physical  conditions.    That  parcel  is  right  up  at  what  we  call 
the  top  of  the  ridge. 

Questioned  by  Master. 

County  Road  2518,  shown  on  the  map,  is  east  of  the  crest,  which 
is  just  about  the  limit  of  the  brown  line,  and  the  line  of  the  Rancho 
Tullarcitos  is  supposed  to  follow  the  crest.  The  Pueblo  line  San 
Jose  is  also  supposed  to  follow  the  crest.  Monument  Peak  is  right 
near  where  it  says  "Santa  Clara  and  Alameda  County",  in  21,  and 
was  chosen  as  the  point  to  mark  the  county  division  line.  Mission 
Peak  is  probably  three-quarters  of  a  mile  or  a  mile  further  north. 

CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  STEINHART. 

The  crest  line  comes  just  a  little  east  of  the  westerly  line  of 
W-268.  The  lands  to  the  west  of  such  parcels  as  p-268  have  a  suf- 
ficient value  in  themselves  for  other  purposes  than  cattle,  such  as 
fruit  and  vegetables,  and  that  would  make  the  valley  lands  not 
dependent  on  the  cattle  ranges.  The  raising  of  cattle  as  an  auxil- 
iary to  consume  stubble,  etc.,  would  add  quite  a  little  income  to 
the  farmers  of  the  valley,  and  for  that  reason,  adjoining  hillside 
would  be  very  desirable.  I  have  never  mapped  out  those  sections 


Clayton 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

on  the  topographical  map,  and  do  not  know  the  elevation  of  p-268, 

Map  18.  1007 

Parcel  321;  Subterranean  waters  are  evidenced  there  by  the 
growth  of  vegetation  at  this  time  of  year  after  other  vegetation  has  1008 
dried  up.  I  do  not  know  anything  about  the  plane  of  the  subter- 
ranean waters  there,  but  I  do  know  that  the  valley  demon- 
strates the  permanency  of  that  plane.  Just  north  of  321  are  places 
where  there  are  natural  water  spots,  and  they  have  to  drain  the 
valley.  The  banks  of  the  creek  will  demonstrate  the  depth  of  the 
soil,  and  they  show  it  to  be  good  clay,  rich  soil,  more  of  an  adobe 
nature  in  some  places,  but  of  the  consistency  that  produces  hard, 
heavy  produce.  I  examined  the  little  creeks  in  there  to  determine 
that.  I  think  the  portion  where  the  land  would  have  to  be  drained  1009 
to  make  an  orchard  satisfactory,  would  be  in  323,  and  not  very  far 
north  of  the  line  dividing  323  and  325.  That  and  the  south  end  of 
325  seem  to  be  the  wettest  place,  but  it  showed  very  clearly  that  it 
was  readily  drainable. 

I  think  there  are  about  17  forty-acre  tracts  in  that  good  land 
portion  of  the  valley,  and  to  get  those,  I  have  taken  two  of  them  1010 
out  of  325  just  north  of  323.  By  counting  these  40 's,  it  runs  about 
680  acres,  instead  of  1000  acres.  There  are  approximately  100  acres 
out  of  parcel  325  that  will  come  in  under  that  description,  and 
there  are  a  few  benches  even  north  of  that  which  I  have  not  taken 
into  consideration.  The  balance  of  325  could  grow  orchard,  but  it 
would  not  be  as  fine  a  one  as  could  be  raised  on  the  100  acres. 
Where  water  would  do  damage,  one  wouldn't  go  into  the  fruit  1011 
business.  As  to  the  depth  of  the  water  below  that  point  south  of 
it,  I  simply  take  the  surface  indications,  and  in  a  few  places,  from 
neglect  of  the  farmer,  there  are  indications  showing  water  at  the 
surface.  I  know  that  this  condition  does  not  apply  very  close  to 
the  surface,  because  the  creek,  itself,  has  not  a  large  volume  of 
water  in  it,  and  it  did  not  appear  to  me  to  be  a  heavy  flowing  creek 
during  the  winter  season,  on  account  of  the  length  .and  breadth 
of  it.  I  presume  it  does  overflow  at  times. 

Map  17,  F-268;  I  did  not  give  any  added  value  to  the  tillable 
portions  of  this  piece  nor  any  lesser  value  to  the  untillable  portions. 
I  took  it  all  as  an  entirety.  320  acres  at  $25  an  acre  on  account  of 
the  feeding  qualities.  1012 

(The  Master  here  stated  that  the  table  indicated  that  the  320 
acre  piece  of  this  parcel  is  valued  at  $30,  and  the  20  acre  piece  at 
$25  per  acre.  Witness  stated  that  $25  an  acre  should  cover  the  320 
acres  and  $30  should  cover  the  20  acres.) 

268-h;  I  do  not  know  that  there  is  a  house  there,  nor  that  it 
is  in  a  habitable  condition.  Parks  lives  in  268-j  and  268-k.  He 
grows  hay,  and  I  think  I  heard  him  state  this  year  that  he  got  about 
10l/2,  but  I  don't  know  how  many  acres  he  had,  nor  how  many  tons 

287 


Clayton 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

1013  of  hay  he  had.    He  has  1200  tons,  but  it  is  scattered  over  a  great 
deal  of  land,  and  that  contributes  its  share,  when  I  speak  of  lO1/^ 
tons  to  the  acre. 

I  have  had  acquaintance  with  growers  of  sugar  beets  in  the 
Salinas  Valley,  the  San  Juan  Valley,  and  the  Santa  Clara  Valley. 
My  experience  varies  from  15  tons  to  25  and  30  tons  to  the  acre, 
although  I  have  never  grown  sugar  beets  myself,  and  have  only 
had  to  do  with  them  in  connection  with  dealings  with  the 
farmers.  I  am  not  familiar  with  the  Alvarado  sugar  beet  country, 
and  do  not  know  how  many  tons  of  beets  that  runs  to  the  acre. 
I  am  unacquainted  with  the  Pleasanton  country,  and  do  not  know 
how  many  sugar  beets  that  runs  to  the  acre.  I  do  not  know  the 

1014  Woodland  country,  nor  how  many  tons  to  the  acre  that  runs.    I  can 
give  you  an  individual  instance  of  a  man  named  Flint,  in  San  Juan, 
who  had  25  tons  to  the  acre  some  years  ago.    I  have  been  interested 
in   a  number   of  different  ranches  that   grew   sugar  beets,   but  I 
did  not  take  a  sufficient  notation  of  the  production  to  know  just 
who  ever  did  raise  25  tons  to  the  acre,  other  than  this  man,  Flint. 
Our  interest  in  these  ranches  that  I  mention  was  simply  loaning 
money  on  mortgages  to  people  who  had  those  lands.     We  have 
not  dictated  crops  in  any  way,  nor  interfered  with  them.     The  Al- 
varado country  is  quite  a  distinct  territory  from  Santa  Clara  Val- 
ley, and  according  to  my  own  private  opinion,  I  would  not  say 
that  it  is  the  best  sugar  beet  country  in  the  state.    I  gain  my  knowl- 
edge as  to  what  sugar  beets  need  in  going  through  the  Salinas, 

1015  San  Juan,  and  Santa  Clara  Valleys.     It  is  possible  that  you  misin- 
terpreted my  remarks  that  the  lands  of  Calaveras  Valley  would 
grow  from  20  to  25  tons  to  the  acre  in  these  two  sections.     These 
two  80 's  have  not  quite  as  fertile  conditions  of  soil  as  the  bottom 
of  the  valley.     I  would  not  know  how  much  they  would  produce 
per  acre.    In  general  terms,  I  do  state,  that  new  land  will  produce 
more  than  land  which  has  been  used  before  for  the  same  purpose. 
The  Alvarado  country  has  been  used  for  sugar  beets  enough  to  take 
off  its  cream.    I  don't  know  whether  sugar  beets  were  ever  grown 
in  the  Calaveras  Valley,  or  whether  alfalfa  was  ever  grown  there. 
It  does  not  bear  evidence  of  alfalfa  growing,  as  when  an  alfalfa 
field  has  been  plowed  up,  there  are  always  a  few  stumps  that  come 
back,  and  I  don't  see  that  in  the  Calaveras  Valley. 

1016  I  do  not  know  how  old  the  Carson  prune  orchard  is,  but  it 
bears  evidence  of  age. 

Map  18,  parcel  330 ;  I  have  seen  grain  and  hay  raised  there. 

There  is  a  patch  of  corn  growing  in  the  parcel  which  runs 
alongside  the  county  road,  which  I  really  believe  is  in  parcel  330, 
although  I  cannot  positively  locate  it.  It  is  near  the  corner  of 

1017  the  road.    I  could  not  state  positively  that  it  was  not  a  volunteer 
crop,  but  the  l#nd  does  not  bear  evidence  of  its  being  volunteer. 

288 


Clayton 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

Map  16,  parcel  323.  West  of  the  creek,  the  soil  is  very  rich,  and 
clear  of  evidences  of  too  much  water.  East  of  creek,  there  is  a 
spot  that  contains  a  little  wet  spot.  The  balance  of  the  land  is  very 
good.  It  runs  up  the  hill  a  little  ways.  The  easterly  half  is  rather 
hilly,  but  not  bad.  In  valuing  this  parcel,  I  considered  the  rich 
portions  of  the  land  so  desirable  that  it  would  overcome  any  acre- 
age of  poor  land,  even  if  they  should  be  of  no  value.  There  is  quite 
a  little  acreage  of  hilly  land  to  the  east,  but  I  considered  myself 
justified  in  putting  the  valuation  I  did  on  that,  notwithstanding  the 
hilly  acreage  to  the  east  holds  up  quite  a  few  acres. 

Parcel  324;  The  westerly  portion  slightly  less  desirable  than 
the  rest,  because  it  has  a  slope  instead  of  being  perfectly  level,  and 
I  made  a  slight  reduction  because  of  that  fact.  1018 

Parcel  328 ;  is  the  north  slope,  and  is  not  such  bad  land  in  regards 
to  roughness,  and  is  good  cattle  range.  It  would  be  of  value  to  the 
lands  behind  it,  such  as  p-268,  and  it  is  of  more  value  in  conjunc- 
tion with  other  lands  than  it  is  individually.  It  is  an  entrance  to 
the  water  from  those  places  higher  up  the  hill.  When  I  valued 
the  adjoining  lands,  I  did  not  depreciate  them  because  of  the  fact 
that  they  needed  this  adjoining  land,  and  when  I  came  to  value  p-268, 
I  took  into  consideration  solely  its  own  feed.  I  remember  about 
there  being  water  on  each  section,  and  cattle  will  go  to  the  nearest  1019 
water.  That  does  not  necessarily  mean  that  the  nearest  water  from 
p-268  was  in  the  creek  in  328,  for  from  whatever  portion  the  cattle 
may  come,  if  for  instance,  it  would  be  easier  to  reach  a  spring 
going  down  hill  than  going  up,  they  graze  along,  and  do  just  as  the 
circumstance  would  dictate  to  a  human  being. 

In  regard  to  how  much  it  is  usual  to  add  for  a  one-year  or- 
chard, it  will  cost  from  $50  to  $75  an  acre  to  plant  an  orchard, 
according  to  the  price  of  trees  the  year  you  plant  them.  Trees 
will  run  25  cents  some  years,  and  50  cents  other  years.  You  plant 
about  100  trees  to  the  acre.  My  experience  has  been  we  could  never  1020 
sell  a  one-year  old  orchard.  The  trees  don't  begin  to  show  their 
value  in  the  first  year's  growth.  $100  ought  to  cover  the  cost. 

I  am  not  familiar  with  the  sale  made  opposite  the  Murphy- 
Colombat  property  by  E.  J.  Sharon  and  McKillip  Bros.  I  know  it 
took  place,  and  I  know  that  it  was  partly  in  trade.  I  can  give 
you  the  figures  if  you  want  them. 

(Discussion  between  Counsel  as  to  what  Mr.  Holmes  told  Mr.       1021 
McDonald  about  the  prune  crop  in  Calaveras  Valley  not  being  har- 
vested until  October.) 

RE-DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.   MCCUTCHEN. 

This  is  a  normal  season  for  prunes.  Those  are  extraordinarily 
developed  (referring  to  a  box  of  prunes  shown  Witness),  and  are 
further  along  than  any  I  have  seen  yet. 

289 


Clayton 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

Mr.  McCutchen:  We  will  show  later  where  these  came  from. 
Mr.  Steinhart :  Oh,  if  you  say  that  they  came  .from  Calaveras, 
Mr.  McCutchen,  we  will  admit  it. 

1022  I  had  a  talk  last  night  with  Mr.  Holmes,  about  the  prunes  pur- 
chased by  him  from  the  Calaveras  land,  and  he  said  they  were  very 
good,  but  at  times,  when  they  bore  an  excessive  crop,  they  appeared 
to  be  short  in  sugar,  and  did  not  run  up  so  heavy  in  weight.     The 
crop  of  1914  appeared  to  run  lighter  than  normal,  and  he  thought 
they  averaged  83  to  the  pound.     The  year  before  they  ran  63  to 
the  pound,  and  the  crop  of  a  nearby  former  year  were  the  finest  he 

1023  had  ever  seen.    He  told  me  the  prunes  were  delivered  to  him  green, 
purely  as  a  matter  of  convenience,  and  not  because  they  could  not 

.  be  dried  in  Calaveras  Valley.  They  were  hauled  six  miles  from 
Calaveras  Valley  to  the  Holmes  Dryer,  and  he  dried  them  for  the 
Carson  Bros.  Mr.  Holmes  is  a  professional  dryer,  and  a  buyer  of 
green  prunes.  We  went  through  his  receipts  for  the  green  fruit 
delivered  to  him  by  Carson  Bros.,  and  found  the  last  two  deliveries 

1024  to  have  been  made  on  December  22nd  and  23rd. 

September  is  the  usual  month  for  prune  crops  to  be  harvested 
in  the  Santa  Clara  Valley.  I  have  sold  my  crop  this  year  to  be 
delivered  a  distance  of  six  miles,  and  will  deliver  them  with  horse- 
drawn  vehicles.  It  is  customary  to  deliver  wherever  you  get  the 
best  price.  Some  times  we  get  a  dollar  more  for  delivery  at  a 
distance,  but  that  is  only  used  as  a  subterfuge  by  the  buyer,  when 
the  buyer  has  agreed  to  pay  a  certain  price.  They  want  a  crop 
that  is  particularly  desirable,  and  will  give  the  grower  a  dollar  for 
delivering  it.  Sometimes  they  allow  a  dollar  by  way  of  a  brokerage 
charge.  It  is  simply  a  rise  in  the  price.  Milpitas,  I  think,  is  about 
six  miles  from  Calaveras  Valley,  and  it  is  just  nine  miles  to  the 

1025  buildings  around  the  dam.    Milpitas  is  a  controlling  factor  in  the 
vegetable  trade,  and  is  one  of  the  best  markets  in  the  State  of  Cali- 
fornia for  what   we   call   surface   crops,   the   Portuguese   market. 
Formerly  it  was  the  controlling  factor  in  asparagus,  but  asparagus 
was  found  to  grow  better  up  in  the  islands,  so  it  has  no  longer 
that  market.     The  California  Fruit  Canners  Association  have  con- 
sidered that  that  territory  was  so  good  for  their  purposes,  that 
they  have  erected  a  vegetable  cannery  there,  and  have  rented  many 
acres  of  land,  all  of  which  represent  a  total  outlay  of  money  by 
them  in  that  neighborhood  of  $60,000  or  $70,000.    I  know  of  freight- 
ing of  farm  produce  by  horse-drawn   and   gasoline  trucks  for  a 
greater  distance  than  six  or  nine  miles.     The  market  at  Milpitas 
is  so   attractive  that  Oakland   commission  men  send  their  trucks 
down  there,  and  haul  the  produce  to  Oakland,  or  to  San  Francisco. 
and  I  would  like  to  bring  out  this  point,  that  the  accessibility  to 
market  dominates  the  value  and  the  price  of  land.     The  fact  that 
the  Milpitas  and  San  Jose  markets,  both  of  which  are  virtually 

290 


Clayton 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

head  centers  for  marketing,  are  there,  gives  a  material  advantage, 
and  adds  value  to  these  Calaveras  lands,  as  against  lands  at  a 
greater  distance.  1026 

I  never  counted  the  number  of  persons  that  are  living  in  and 
around  that  section  at  the  time  when  the  company  began  to  make 
purchases  in  1911.  There  was  a  family  on  the  Weller  place,  W-268, 
and  they  are  there  yet.  There  was  a  family  on  the  Santos  place,  X-268, 
and  they  are  there  yet;  a  family  on  the  Jacobson  place,  parcel  295, 
and  there  is  one  there  yet.  On  parcel  F-268  there  was  a  family — 
there  is  a  different  family  there  now.  People  who  were  living  there 
in  1911  are  pretty  well  scattered.  Every  one  of  these  places,  or 
90  percent  of  them,  show  evidences  of  dwelling  houses,  and  which 
now  you  only  find  the  remains  of.  The  Spring  Valley  Water  Co. 
has  bought  out  and  depopulated  the  country  during  a  series  of 
forty  years,  possibly,  and  it  is  hard  for  me  to  remember  which 
ones  have  come  out  since  1911.  There  was  formerly  a  school  house 
in  Calaveras  Valley.  I  have  noticed  three  depopulated  school 
houses;  one  in  Calaveras  Valley,  one  at  the  Oak  Ridge  Road,  and 
one  down  the  creek  a  little  ways.  Also  there  are  either  one  or  1027 
two  school  houses  up  the  Felker  road  on  the  Santa  Clara  County 
map,  and  called  the  Sierra  road  on  this  map.  These  are  also  vacated. 

The  prune  crops  in  Colusa  County  do  not  bring  as  good  a 
price  as  those  produced  in  Santa  Clara  County.  The  market  allows 
a  differential  of  a  quarter  of  a  cent  a  pound  on  those  produced  in 
Santa  Clara  County. 

Questioned  by  Master. 

This  is  as  against  any  other  county.  It  is  quoted  in  the  papers 
that  Santa  Clara  prunes  are  one-quarter  of  a  cent  extra.  The  trade 
rates  them  much  different.  The  real  fact  is  that  the  quality  is  much 
different. 

RE-DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.   MCCUTCHEN. 

The  rolling  lands  in  Calaveras  are  partially  possible  of  irriga- 
tion from  the  water  supply  on  themselves  or  from  the  adjoining 
property.  It  would  be  a  commercial  possibility  to  pump  water  for 
the  irrigation  of  these  lands  that  are  sufficiently  level,  to  admit  of 
irrigation.  You  cannot  get  a  correct  idea  of  the  topography  of 
these  bench  and  bare  lands  which  can  be  cultivated  from  an  auto- 
mobile or  wagon,  because,  generally  the  roads  are  in  the  lower  1028 
places.  The  best  way  is  to  get  up  on  the  hills.  I  have  a  photo- 
graph taken  from  the  Priesker  place,  268-i,  which  shows  some  of  the  1028-1029 
land  that  I  was  asked  about  yesterday,  and  asked  whether  it  was 
not  "abrupt".  This  photograph  is  looking  northwest  the  length 
of  the  valley. 

Photograph  offered  and  received  in  evidence  as  "Plaintiff's  Ex- 
hibit 37". 

291 


Clayton 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.   CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

There  is  cattle  on  the  range  now  where  I  stated  that  the  cattle 
ate  the  feed  to  the  grass  roots,  and  they  are  in  fine  condition.  The 
land  on  which  the  wet  places  are,  could  be  drained  at  a  very  slight 
expense,  and  after  being  drained,  I  think  the  land  is  very  finely 
adapted  to  growing  fruit,  and  the  fact  that  there  are  different  depths 
to  the  water  plane,  makes  it  also  desirable,  because  different  varieties 
of  fruit  grow  in  different  depths  of  the  soil.  Pears  are  a  very  profit- 

1030  able  proposition,  and  they  like  water  near  the  surface.    The  Calaveras 
Valley,  in  times  past,  has  produced  as  fine  peaches  as  the  canneries  in 
San  Jose  could  get.     Prunes  are  a  good  staple  crop.     I  don't  think 
there  is  anything  in  the  valley  that  mitigates  against  raising  fruit  to 
a  very  profitable  degree. 

The  land  of  Mr.  Fleming  is  in  the  Dougherty  and  Randall  tract, 
south  of  the  Murphy-Colombat  tract.  It  had  the  reputation  among 
the  real  estate  agents  in  San  Jose  of  being  poor  land,  very  hard  to 
sell,  low  values. 

RE-CROSS    EXAMINATION   BY    MR.    STEINHART. 

In  that  case  Mr.  Fleming  bought  poor  prune  land ;  he  must  have 
just  speculated.  The  Murphy-Colombat  tract  had  some  wonderfully 
nice  land  upon  it,  and  also  some  poor  land.  I  don't  think  the  Sharon 

1031  land  is  very  superior. 

Referring  to  the  different  depths  of  water  planes  in  Calaveras: 
there  are  wet  places  there  where  water  makes  some  big  growths,  and 
in  the  south  end  of  the  valley  there  is  good  evidence  of  lack  of  water. 
Between  those  two,  I  would  infer  that  if  one  planted  an  orchard,  they 
would  have  to  look  out  for  the  depth  of  the  water,  although  I  never 
bored  for  it. 

Referring  to  photograph  of  Calaveras  Valley,  introduced  by 
Counsel  for  Defendant:  these  little  buildings  here  look  as  if  they 
were  the  men 's  camps  and  the  dining  room,  and  the  hills  against  which 
these  buildings  rest,  are  the  hills  on  the  west  side  of  the  valley.  I 
think  it  was  taken  from  the  Oak  Ridge  Road,  as  it  leaves  the  valley. 
Marked  "Defendant's  Exhibit  38". 


Parks        Witness:    WM.  W.  PARKS. 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  OLNEY. 

1032  I  live  in  Calaveras  Valley,  and  went  out  there  in  1881.    I  have 

been  there  ever  since,  and  am  acquainted  with  land  around  Calaveras 
Valley.  I  have  lived  on  Section  26,  Township  5  south,  Range  2  east, 
which  is  about  7  miles  due  east  of  the  valley,  between  Alameda  Creek 
and  Arroyo  Honda.  I  lived  there  from  1881  until  about  1903  or  1904, 

292 


Parks 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

and  have  lived  the  rest  of  the  time  right  in  the  Calaveras  vicinity,  at 
the  place  known  as  the  Bayne  Ranch,  and  the  William's  Place.  The 
Bayne  Place  is  less  than  half  a  mile  from  the  dam  site.  The  William's 
place  is  at  the  extreme  south  end  of  the  valley.  My  occupation  is 
cattle  and  farming.  I  have  been  carrying  it  on  right  in  the  Calaveras 
vicinity,  and  have  had  all  the  water  company's  lands  east  of  the  val- 
ley for  seven  years.  Now  I  am  renting  the  land  west  of  the  valley,  1033 
and  the  valley  also.  I  have  been  raising  cattle,  farming,  buying  and 
selling  also.  I  think  I  am  familiar  with  all  of  the  Spring  Valley 
Water  Co.  's  properties  in  that  vicinity.  I  have  all,  except  about  3000 
acres,  under  lease  now,  and  am  very  familiar  with  it.  I  know  the  rul- 
ing prices  of  lands  of  the  character  of  Spring  Valley  Water  Co.'s 
lands  in  that  neighborhood,  but  only  from  sales.  I  don't  know  any 
of  their  sales  other  than  hearsay.  I  am  acquainted,  in  a  general  way, 
as  to  what  can  be  done  with  this  property  for  agricultural  and  stock 
purposes. 

Map  16,  parcel  223,  in  Section  14;  as  you  leave  the  valley  at  the 
dam  site,  going  up  the  Sunol  road,  traveling  north-westerly  of  the 
dam  site,  there  are  about  60  acres  of  farming  land  there.  It  has  been 
farmed  up  to  two  years  ago  for  8  or  10  years,  by  Bill  Carson. 

Parcel  223  is  almost  directly  north  of  the  dam  site,  and  there  is  1034 
very  good  pasture  land  in  there ;  value  being  $30.  The  market  value 
of  this  land  would  have  been  higher  on  December  31,  1913,  for  the 
cattle  business,  than  it  is  today,  but  there  is  really  no  difference  in 
the  market  value.  This  is  simply  grazing  land,  and  beef  was  higher 
then  than  it  is  today.  There  has  been  pretty  nearly  a  cent  difference 
on  beef  between  then  and  now,  and  that  is  what  that  land  would  be 
used  for,  for  grazing.  If  beef  was  high,  the  land  would  be  worth 
more  money.  In  1913  beef  was  higher  by  three-quarters  of  a  cent 
than  it  is  today.  Referring  to  the  440  acres  in  section  which  includes 
the  forks  of  the  creek,  I  would  not  consider  that  there  is  a  great  deal 
of  difference  in  the  value  of  land  on  December  31,  1913,  and  today. 
I  would  value  it  just  the  same  today,  and  I  valued  that  at  $30  an  acre. 
I  have  paid  $110  for  three  months  of  that  land,  to  put  steers  on  last 
year.  That  is  what  I  valued  the  grazing  at. 

Parcel  258,  northwest  quarter  of  Section  18,  known  to  me  as  the  1035 
Miller  property — by  the  Brannan  •  property — the  Rideout  property, 
is  rough,  and  there  is  some  timber.  Valuable  for  grazing  purposes 
and  wood.  My  valuation  would  be  mostly  for  grazing,  as  it  is  all  good 
for  that.  Valued  at  about  $15.  The  Brannan  place,  marked  Parcel 
246,  being  the  balance  of  Section  18,  is  very  good  grazing  land.  I 
have  seen  100  acres  of  it  farmed.  The  balance  is  very  good  grazing 
land,  and  I  valued  the  474  acres  at  $30. 

Parcel  225,  1720  acres,  containing  portions  of  Sections  14  and  24. 
There  is  always  a  field  at  the  dam  site  that  could  be  plowed,  before 
they  commenced  work  on  the  dam.  Some  farming  land  in  that  piece, 

293 


Parks 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

perhaps  some  20  acres,  and  the  rest  is  very  good  grazing  land.     The 

1036  farming  land  is  located  just  where  the  houses  are  built  now  to  accom- 
modate the  men,  or  the  officials.     That  used  to  be  known  as  the  Old 
Steamboat  House  to  me. 

I  am  very  well  acquainted  with  the  county  road  which  runs  up 
by  the  little  creek.  That  is  the  Sunol  Road,  and  runs  in  at  what  we 
know  as  the  Bayne  place.  There  is  more  than  20  acres  of  farming 
land  in  there.  There  is  that  portion  that  they  tore  up  for  the  pumping 
station.  It  runs  clear  across  to  the  east,  and  takes  in  a  part  of  that. 
Valued  at  $60  an  acre.  There  are  60  acres  there  north  of  the  road, 

1037  just  after  you  leave  the  dam,  and  start  to  Sunol.    The  farming  land 
of  which  I  speak  was  right  north  on  the  road  from  the  houses  at  the 
dam  site,  which  runs  up  the  little  canyon,  and  over  the  hill,  down  to 
Sunol.    After  you  leave  the  camp  site,  you  go  up  that  canyon  about 
a  quarter  of  a  mile,  and  get  in  to  where  Carson  farmed  up  to  the  top 
of  the  hill ;  the  farming  land  lying  north  of  the  road.    Two  years  ago 
Carson  cut  a  volunteer  crop  of  120  acres  of  hay.    I  put  a  valuation 
on  these  60  acres  of  farming  land  of  $60  an  acre.    There  is  no  other 
farming  land  on  that  tract  that  I  know  of.    The  balance  of  the  parcel 
is  very  good  grazing  land,  and  worth  $30  an  acre,  including  this  part 
of  24,  which  lies  east  of  the  creek,  and  it  goes  into  that  one  tract.    The 
tract  of  30  or  35  acres  is  inside  of  the  reservoir  site,  but  there  is  not 
over  two  or  three  acres,  or  four  or  five  acres  of  the  tillable  land  up  to 
the  road  going  to  Sunol,  that  is  in  the  reservoir  site.    The  rest  of  the 

1038  land  in  the  reservoir  site  would  be  pasturage  land. 

W-268,  646  acres ;  Weller  place.  200  acres  of  farming  land,  now 
farmed  by  Mr.  Wool,  who  has  been  farming  it  for  at  least  three  or  four 
years.  Valued  at  $100  an  acre  on  the  farming  land.  The  balance  is 
fair  land,  all  pasture,  higher  than  the  other.  Valued  at  $25  an  acre. 
Two  years  ago  they  had  grain-barley  on  this  Weller  place,  and  har- 
vested about  4000  sacks  of  barley,  but  I  do  not  know  at  what  it  was 
sold,  but  it  is  easy  to  figure,  as  I  know  about  what  prices  were  along 
about  that  time.  Those  prices  vary.  Last  year  I  could  have  bought 
feed  barley  for  90  cents,  but  before  the  season  was  over,  I  paid  $1.86 
for  it.  Barley  from  that  country  will  run  ordinarily  from  108  to  112 
Ibs.  to  the  sack. 

E-241 ;  Crocker  &  Dillon  piece,  in  the  middle  of  Section  23.  The 
extreme  west  side  is  very  rough,  and  the  entire  piece  contains  about 
240  acres.  At  least  100  acres  of  that  is  very  rough,  being  right  up  in 
the  canyon.  I  put  a  value  of  about  $10  an  acre  on  that  rough  stuff. 
The  balance  of  140  acres  is  pretty  good  feed  land ;  good  grazing  land ; 
which  I  valued  at  $25  an  acre.  The  rough  land  lies  above  the  reser- 
voir, and  it  is  the  grazing  land  that  is  in  the  reservoir.  There  is  a  big 
bald  hill  at  the  northwest  corner,  very  good  grazing  land.  The  very 
rough  land  lies  at  the  southwest  end  of  this  property. 

294 


Parks 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

Parcel  320,  Chapman  Flat,  is  marked  on  the  map  as  the  Alameda 
Water  Co.,  and  contains  120  acres.  60  acres  of  fair  farming  land  in  the  1040 
bottom.  Land  down  in  that  section  of  country  is  lighter  than  it  is  in 
the  valley,  and  really  belongs  in  the  valley  farming.  I  do  not  con- 
sider that  as  good  as  the  valley  land.  It  is  irrigable,  and  I  put  a  valu- 
ation of  $75  an  acre  on  it.  The  balance  is  good  grazing  property, 
valued  at  $30  an  acre. 

Questioned  by  Master. 

60  acres  at  $75,  and  60  acres  at  $30.  The  farming  land  in  this 
parcel  is  below  the  white  posts  of  the  reservoir,  and  the  reservoir  con- 
tains all  of  the  $75  land.  Some  of  the  rougher  land  is  also  inside  the 
reservoir. 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  OLNEY. 

Parcel  327,  Cedarbloom  place ;  80  acres  immediately  south  of  the 
Chapman  piece.  Some  farming  land  on  that,  but  has  not  been  farmed  1041 
for  a  number  of  years.  A  point  in  this  piece  was  always  considered  Car- 
son's  place,  and  he  used  to  put  his  young  colts  up  there  in  order  to 
wean  them.  About  30  acres  of  farm  land  in  there,  worth  $60  an  acre, 
is  hilly  land.  The  balance  of  50  acres  is  good  grazing  land,  being 
a  warm  place,  which  produces  good  feed.  I  valued  that  at  $30.  The 
30  acres  of  farming  land  are  above  the  reservoir  line,  so  that  all  of  the 
land  in  the  reservoir  site  is  the  grazing  land.  You  have  to  go  up  an 
old  road  to  get  up  to  the  farming  land. 

Parcel  325,  Games'  property;  124  acres  of  sub-irrigable  land. 
There  are  two  40 's,  two  20 's  and  a  12.  Those  five  pieces  of  land  are 
right  in  the  bottom  adjoining  the  orchard.  The  soil  is  a  black  loam  1042 
adobe.  I  don 't  think  there  was  ever  any  soil  any  better  than  that  soil. 
Sub-irrigable  land  is  described  in  this  way:  I  cut  my  hay  this  year, 
and  could  not  pick  out  over  half  of  it,  as  the  green  stuff  stood  as  high 
as  this  table.  It  was  the  moisture  from  the  bottom  rising  all  the  time. 
As  soon  as  you  leave  that  territory  of  ground,  you  get  into  dryer 
ground,  that  I  consider  is  not  sub-irrigable.  That  is,  the  water  does 
not  rise  up  and  cause  the  stuff  to  grow.  I  think,  without  any  doubt, 
alfalfa  could  be  raised  on  this  land.  It  is  as  fine  alfalfa  land  as  ever 
was.  On  that  particular  piece  of  ground  you  could  raise  alfalfa  with- 
out irrigation.  There  are  ditches  running  all  the  way  through  it  for 
drainage.  That  shows  you  what  the  water  underneath  the  land  must 
be.  To  farm  that  land,  Carson  put  in  many  and  many  a  cross  ditch 
to  get  it  dry  enough.  This  year  I  had  to  haul  the  baled  hay  out  in 
order  to  keep  the  bottoms  of  the  bales  from  rotting  out.  I  have  400 
steers  in  that  ground  now.  Before  I  could  get  the  hay  baled,  and  it 
has  been  baled  now  two  weeks,  there  was  as  good  a  second  crop  as  the 
first  crop.  It  is  good  grass  there  too.  Red  Top  and  Jackass  clover. 
You  cannot  handle  that  land  unless  you  keep  the  ditches  open.  I  con- 
sider that  is  sub-irrigable  land.  30  acres,  which  lie  east  of  the  Ras-  1043 
mussen  or  Gaines  house,  is  good  level  farming  land.  It  is  irrigable, 

295 


Parks 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

but  not  sub-irrigable.  On  the  sub-irrigated  land  I  put  a  valuation  of 
$400,  as  I  think  anything  on  earth  will  grow  on  it,  and  on  the  30-acre 
piece,  not  sub-irrigated,  I  put  a  value  of  $175  an  acre.  There  is  an 
orchard  of  pears  and  prunes  on  this  property  of  about  25  acres.  This 
orchard  is  irrigable  land,  but  is  really  on  sub-irrigated  land.  Leav- 
ing the  orchard  out  of  consideration,  I  would  put  a  valuation  of  $400 
on  it,  the  same  as  I  did  on  the  other.  The  orchard  was  not  included 
in  that  132  acres.  The  acreage  of  sub-irrigated  land  is  made  up  in 
detail  of  two  40  's,  one  20  and  two  12 's,  which  make  the  total  of  124, 
instead  of  132,  as  I  gave  it  before. 

1044  CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  SEARLS. 

There  are  25  acres  prunes  and  pears  in  the  orchard. 

DIRECT   EXAMINATION   BY   MR.    OLNEY. 

I  have  seen  that  orchard  recently,  and  there  is  a  very  good  av- 
erage crop  on  it.  In  this  piece  there  is  124  acres  of  sub-irrigated  land, 
25  acres  of  orchard,  which  is  also  sub-irrigated  land,  and  30  acres  of 
irrigable  land.  There  is  some  hill  farming  land  directly  south  of  the 
30  acres  that  run  out  from  the  house.  There  are  about  between  20  and 
25  acres  of  that,  valued  at  $100.  The  balance  of  the  section  is  very 
good  pasture  land,  valued  at  $30.  All  of  the  sub-irrigated  land  is  in 
the  reservoir,  as  is  also  the  orchard,  and  the  30-acre  tract  of  irrigable 
land.  The  20  acres  of  farming  hill  land  is  mostly  above  the  posts. 
There  may  be  one-third  of  it  below  the  posts,  and  the  balance  of  the 

1045  land  would  be  the  pasture  land.     To  my  knowledge  there  has  never 
been  a  failure  in  the  orchard,  and  the  condition  of  the  sub-irrigated 
land  in  dry  years  has  been  fine.    I  never  saw  a  year  where  we  did  not 
have  crops  to  feed  in  that  locality,  from  Black  Mountain  to  the  Mil- 
pitas  line.     Two  years  ago,  which  was  a  very  dry  year,  Mr.  Carson 
baled  1800  tons  of  hay.     California  never  suffered  so  much  as  it  did 
two  years  ago.    It  was  the  toughest  year  we  have  ever  had.    Still  we 
sold  beef.    I  sold  my  hay  for  $23.     Mr.  Carson  offered  to  sell  1500 
tons  of  hay  at  that  time  for  $24  a  ton,  and  the  buyer  offered  $22.50. 

Parcel  322,  Pomeroy  place;  I  know  it  quite  well.  There  is  a  32- 
acre  field  lying  right  along  Pomeroy  Creek.  24  acres  of  it  fine  veget- 

1046  able  land.    Mr.  Carson,  and  Mr.  Pomeroy  grew  vegetables  there.    It 
is  as  good  vegetable  land  as  anybody  can  find.    There  is  a  stream  of 
water  running  alongside  of  it  to  irrigate  from.     66  acres  of  farming 
land  across  the  creek;  the  rest  is  pasture  land.     The  balance  of  the 
32-acre  field  is  A-l  farming  land.    The  24-acre  piece  is  irrigable  land, 
and  I  valued  it  at  $250  an  acre.     The  8  acres  in  the  same  field,  I 
valued  at  $150.    I  estimated  66  acres  of  farming  land,  hilly,  and  not 
so  good  as  some  of  the  farming  land  adjoining  it.    I  valued  that  at  $75 ; 
the  balance  is  very  good  pasture,  valued  at  $30.    The  24  acres  of  veg- 
etable land  lie  inside  the  reservoir  site,   and  there  are  about  ten 
acres  of  the  hill  farming  land,  or  possibly  more,  which  lie  in  the  res- 

296 


Parks 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

ervoir  site.  The  balance  of  the  pasture  land,  and  of  the  hill  land,  lies 
outside  the  reservoir  site.  Going  by  the  white  signs  that  mark  the  1047 
height  of  the  water,  and  not  according  to  the  map,  the  32-acre  field 
practically  lies  all  inside  the  reservoir  site.  The  fence  runs  along  in 
those  gulches,  or  flat  places  in  there,  and  lots  of  those  sign  boards  have 
been  torn  down,  which  makes  it  rather  hard  to  remember.  All  of  the 
vegetable  land  is  inside,  and  possibly  half  the  8  acres,  and  about  10 
or  12  acres  of  the  farming  land  on  the  other  side  of  the  creek. 

Parcels  323  and  324;  the  Ham  and  Harris  pieces  together,  com- 
monly known  as  the  Harris,  or  Wells  place ;  lies  due  south  of  the  Pome- 
roy  place  and  the  Gaines  place.  200  acres  of  A-l  sub-irrigable  land  in 
that  tract,  valued  at  about  $400.  On  extreme  west  about  120  acres  of 
hill  land,  is  being  farmed,  and  has  been  farmed  for  30  years.  Valued  at 
$100.  On  the  east  side,  I  have  seen  as  good  potatoes  grown  many  years  1048 
ago,  as  I  have  ever  seen  grown  in  California.  About  50  acres  in  that 
patch  not  included  in  the  200  acres  of  sub-irrigable  land.  This  I 
valued  at  $150  in  the  condition  it  is  in  now.  The  balance  is  very  good 
pasture  land;  valued  at  $30. 

Y-268 ;  Popham  piece ;  120  acres,  immediately  west  of  the  Pome- 
roy  and  Harris  places.  Very  rough;  grazing,  wood  and  timber;  sec- 
ond rate  or  third  rate  grazing  ground.  Pretty  rough  stuff,  valued  at 
about  $15. 

X-268 ;  Santos  place ;  immediately  west  of  the  Popham  place,  and       1049 
south  of  the  Weller  place.    Farming  land  and  pasture  land.    At  least 
100  acres,  or  more,  of  farming  land,  which  I  valued  at  $100.     The 
balance  is  very  fair  grazing  land;  valued  at  $25. 

Section  19;  Crocker  &  Dillon  property;  634  acres.  Very  good 
for  grazing  purposes.  At  least  80  acres  have  been  farmed,  but  is  now 
used  for  grazing  purposes.  I  place  a  valuation  of  $30  on  Section  19, 
A-241.  I  valued  the  whole  section  at  $30  an  acre,  including  36  acres 
in  the  reservoir,  and  598  acres  in  the  watershed.  I  think  the  land  in  1050 
the  reservoir  site  is  about  the  same  as  that  in  the  watershed. 

Map  17,  parcels  H-268  and  e-268,  Section  20;  it  is  a  very  good 
section,  and  some  times  known  as  the  Walker  place.  He  raised  hay 
there,  and  it  contains  at  least  60  or  70  acres  of  farming  land,  used  at 
the  present  for  pasture.  It  is  very  good.  I  put  a  value  of  $30  on 
that. 

Map  16,  parcel  328  and  329 ;  240  acres,  known  as  the  Dave  Jeffery 
place;  I  am  familiar  with  that,  and  the  character  of  the  land  is  very 
rough.    It  is  good  for  grazing,  with  some  wood  on  it.    Valued  at  $15.       *^51 
There  is  no  difference  between  the  watershed  and  the  reservoir  lands, 
and  my  valuation  of  $15  an  acre  will  apply  to  both. 

Map  16,  parcel  p-268,  the  Jack  Jeffery  place,  Section  30 :  I  know 
it  well.  It  is  very  good  feed  land.  That  is,  grazing  land,  which  I 
valued  at  $25  an  acre. 

297 


Parks 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

E-268;  Mendoza  piece,  north  half  of  Section  8;  very  good  feed 
land,  but  high  up.  Good  open  ground,  and  good  land  for  that  coun- 
try. Valuable  for  grazing  purposes.  Valued  at  about  $15. 

1052  F-268,  south  half  of  the  same  section ;  the  Hughes  place.    Not  any 
clearer  ground,  but  is  in  a  warmer  line.    Just  goes  into  the  snow  belt, 
and  is  a  little  better  ground.    Valued  at  $17.50. 

Parcels  E-268,  F-268  and  G-268,  Section  16;  altogether  contain- 
ing 640  acres.  Bough  grazing  land  at  $15  on  the  entire  section. 

E-268,  northwest  quarter  of  Section  12,  part  of  the  Mendoza 
property;  I  have  been  on  it  many  and  many  a  year.  It  is  high  and 
cold ;  good  for  grazing  purposes  at  certain  times  of  the  year.  Worth 
about  $6  an  acre.  That  high  ground  is  badly  needed  at  times.  For 
instance,  in  the  lower  country,  our  feed  starts  to  dry  up  in  the  middle 
of  May.  The  cattle  have  not  finished  feeding,  and  if  they  can  follow 
the  snow  line,  there  is  no  snow  there  to  speak  of,  but  as  it  is  colder 
up  there,  the  grass  is  later,  and  as  long  as  you  can  keep  cattle  on  green 
stuff,  they  are  going  to  do  well  and  get  fat.  There  are  times  of  the 

1053  year  when  that  ground  is  valuable  for  finishing  up  the  cattle. 

B-241,  Section  29 ;  I  am  very  well  acquainted  with  that  particular 
section.  It  is  rough  in  character ;  not  good  for  anything  but  pasture. 
The  entire  section  is  worth  $15  an  acre. 

r-268  and  q-268,  Section  28,  north  half  of  the  southwest  quarter ; 
fair  grazing  land;  farmed  only  in  spots,  and  amounts  to  nothing.  I 
put  a  value  of  $20  an  acre  on  480  acres  in*  that  section. 

r-268  and  s-268,  Section  22,  the  southwest  quarter  and  the  south 
half  of  the  southeast  quarter.  Rough  and  high,  and  not  useful  for 

1054  anything  but  pasturage.    Valued  at  $10  per  acre. 

Section  26,  the  west  half  of  the  west  half,  the  southeast  quarter 
of  the  southwest  quarter,  the  south  half  of  the  northeast  quarter,  and 
the  southeast  quarter,  440  acres;  is  fair  grass  land,  but  high.  Not  so 
rough,  but  pretty  fair  grazing.  Valued  at  $10  an  acre.  I  lived  on 
the  adjoining  quarter  for  not  less  than  18  years  of  my  life. 

Map  18- A,  parcel  C-241,  Section  33;  fair  grazing  land  for  the 
height  it  is  in.  Valued  at  about  $15  an  acre. 

Parcels  r-268,  v-268  and  w-268,  Section  34 ;  part  of  that  is  fair, 
the  other  part  rough.  All  grazing  land ;  turns  off  lots  of  feed.  I  think 
I  would  subdivide  it  for  the  purpose  of  valuing  the  land.  The  north- 
west half  $15,  and  the  southeast  half  at  $10. 

Questioned  by  Master. 

The  high  part  of  the  section  is  the  northwest  half,  but  that  is 
clear.  The  southwest  half  takes  you  down  into  the  rough  part.  The 
northwest  half  is  good  feeding  ground,  but  it  is  high;  that  is  what 

1055  holds  the  value  down.    You  could  call  it  the  north  half,  and  could  in- 
dicate it  by  drawing  a  diagonal  right  through  the  center  of  the  section 
as  she  lies. 


Parks 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 
DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  OLNEY. 

The  320-acre  piece,  r-268 ;  the  north  half  I  would  value  at  $15, 
as  it  is  all  open,  fine  grazing  land,  but  the  south  half  runs  down  into 
Honda  Creek,  and  becomes  rough.  I  valued  that  at  $10. 

Parcel  e-268,  Section  36 ;  high,  but  good  grazing  land  of  its  kind. 
Valued  at  $8. 

p-268,  640  acres  in  Section  4 ;  the  south  half  of  that  section  clear, 
good  feed,  and  grazing  ground.  The  north  half  that  tips  toward 
Honda  is  not  so  good.  The  south  half  I  value  at  $25  an  acre,  and  the 
north  half  at  $15.  -j^g 

Section  10,  immediately  to  the  southeast  of  Section  4,  contains 
480  acres,  is  clear  and  high,  having  no  brush;  is  in  the  snow  line. 
Value  per  acre  $10. 

v-268  and  x-268,  Section  2;  very  rough;  valued  at  about  $6  an 
acre. 

Map  18,  z-268;  Brandt  place;  also  known  as  the  Pat  Murray 
place.  Contains  40  acres.  About  12  acres  of  farming  land  on  it,  and 
the  rest  is  pasture  land.  I  put  a  valuation  of  $40  per  acre  for  the 
entire  quarter  section. 

Questioned  by  Master. 

I  valued  the  farming  land  at  $60,  and  the  pasture  land  at  $30. 
I  may  have  figured  that  a  little  wrong,  but  I  valued  the  whole  thing      1057 
at  $40  straight  through.    When  I  placed  my  valuation  of  $40  on  it, 
I  classified  it  by  the  farming  land  alongside  of  it. 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  OLNEY. 

Parcel  321,  the  Carson  home  piece,  or  the  Campbell  piece;  be- 
ginning at  the  creek,  and  going  west  to  the  road ;  15  acres  of  orchard, 
80  acres  of  A-l  farming  land,  irrigable  land;  42  acres  of  the  same 
class  of  land  between  the  ditch  and  the  road.  The  15  acres  of  orchard 
is  very  good,  and  has  a  good  crop  on  it  of  prunes  and  a  few  apricots 
this  year.  The  prunes  are  all  commencing  to  color  up  nicely.  The  1058 
orchard  land  is  irrigable,  but  is  not  sub-irrigated  land.  Leaving  the 
orchard  out  of  consideration,  I  put  a  valuation  on  that  land  of  $200 
per  acre.  The  80  acres  of  irrigable  land  I  valued  at  the  same  price. 
The  42  acres  I  placed  the  same  value  on.  Going  still  further  west, 
you  are  running  into  hilly  farming  land.  There  are  about  60  acres 
that  lie  west  of  the  house  that  is  good  farming  land,  and  about  80  acres 
lying  south  or  southwest  of  the  house,  of  hill  farming  land.  Then 
about  100  acres  in  what  is  known  as  the  Roderick  place,  on  the  west 
of  the  two  described  pieces  of  land,  that  is  about  half  farming  and 
about  half  pasture.  The  60-acre  piece  is  farming  land,  and  has  a  crop 
on  it  today.  I  valued  that  at  $100.  The  80-acre  piece  is  the  same  1059 
class  of  land,  with  the  same  value.  That  land  is  producing  right  now 
about  a  ton  and  a  quarter  to  the  acre.  The  100  acres  is  fully  50  per- 

299 


Parks 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.   CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

cent  farming  land.  The  balance  is  very  good  pasture  land,  which  I 
would  value  at  $30  an  acre.  The  farming  land,  I  value  at  $75  an  acre. 
There  is  about  half  and  half.  The  land  immediately  east  of  the  creek 
is  farming  land ;  50  acres  irrigable  valley  land.  I  put  a  value  of  $175 
on  that.  The  balance  of  the  tract  is  pasture  land  at  $30  an  acre.  Good 
open  land.  All  the  level  land  is  in  the  reservoir  site;  that  would  be 

1060  the  80,  the  42,  and  the  orchard.    There  is  about  15  acres  that  is  west 
of  the  road  and  below  the  water  level,  and  that  is  made  up  of  the 
$100  farming  land.    There  are  60  acres  on  the  east  side  all  farming 
land  that  is  in  the  reservoir. 

Parcel  330,  John  Sherman  place,  311  acres;  it  is  divided  into 
three  fields.  The  valley  field  has  131  acres.  West  of  the  road  the 
hill  field  has  120  acres ;  east  of  the  road  there  are  60  acres,  all  farming 
land.  The  131  acres  of  valley  land  can  be  irrigated.  The  soil  is 
getting  lighter  there,  and  I  valued  that  at  $150  per  acre.  The  120 
acres  of  hill  land  I  value  at  $100. 

(The  witness  here  explained  that  when  he  was  describing  the  131- 
acre  piece,  he  understood  that  he  had  been  questioned  about  the  60- 

1061  acre  piece,  and  described  that,  and  not  the  131-acre  piece.) 

The  131  acres  which  lie  west  of  the  creek  is  good  land,  flat,  all 
level,  and  capable  of  irrigation.  This  I  valued  at  $200  an  acre.  About 
3  acres  of  the  60  acres  of  the  $150  land  on  the  east,  do  not  lie  in  the 
reservoir  site.  About  85  acres  lying  on  the  west  of  the  $100  land  do 
not  lie  in  the  reservoir  site.  The  remainder  is  in  the  reservoir  site.  I 
just  estimated  the  amount  of  land  to  the  west,  and  it  may  be  77  acres 
instead  of  85,  but  it  is  made  up  of  the  land  that  I  described  as  farm- 
ing land,  and  valued  at  $100  an  acre. 

Parcel  331,  the  Sam  Sherman  piece;  160  acres.  90  acres  of 
level  ground,  good  soil,  well  located  for  irrigation.  Valued  at  $200. 

1062  There  is  about  60  acres  of  hill  land,  farming  land,  rather  light  soil, 
valued  at  $75.     The  balance  of  the  section,  about  10  acres  made  up 
of    roughness.      The    corner    that    runs    up    to    the    Collins    place, 
is  very  rough  and  brushy.     The  condition  of  the  10  acres,  so  far 
as  water  is  concerned,  is  fine.     A  stream  of  water  runs  through 
there,  and  there  is  a  good  deal  of  wood  which  can  be  sold.    Valued 
at  about  $25  an  acre.    The  10  acres  is  above  the  white  posts  which 
mark  the  water  level,  and  is  at  the  corner  that  runs  up  to  the  Bever- 
son  and  Patton  property.    The  entire  90  acres  of  the  $200  land  lies 
inside  the  reservoir  site.    The  balance,  outside  of  the  10  acres,  is  of 
the  hill  land,  valued  at  $75  an  acre;  so  that  I  would  have,  in  the 
watershed,  10  acres  of  rough  land,  and  54  acres  of  farming  land. 

g-268,  Patton  place ;  160  acres.  That  is  light,  and  is  all  farming 
land  with  the  exception  of  about  20  acres.  It  is  hilly  land.  I 

1063  farmed  it  for  three  years  myself,  and  I  value  that  hill  farming  land 
at  $75.    The  20  acres  not  farming  land  is  grazing,  wood  and  timber. 
It  would  not  be  of  any  use  without  that  corner.     There  is  a  good 

300 


Parks 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

deal  of  water  there,  and  it  has  to  come  in  conjunction  with  that 
land  to  make  it  right.  I  valued  that  at  $30. 

a-268,  over  against  the  Brandt-Hansen  place  on  the  west,  I  am 
not  familiar  with.  1064 

b-268 ;  197  acres.  I  am  very  well  acquainted  with  that  place. 
About  30  acres  lies  south  of  Calaveras  road;  10  acres  of  that  is 
rough;  20  acres  of  it  good  hill  farming  land. 

Questioned  by  Master. 

This  will  fix  this  piece — the  Brandt-Hansen  piece,  about  30 
acres  down  here.  There  is  no  number  on  that;  that  is  south  of  the 
Calaveras  road,  in  the  extreme  southeast  corner  of  Section  35.  22 
acres  of  this  land  lie  above  the  hog-back  the  road  passes  through. 
The  30  acres  in  that  piece  have  always  been  considered  south  of  the 
road  and  below  the  road. 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  OLNEY. 

It  actually  lies  below  the  road  in  altitude,  but  when  you  come 
over  to  the  west,  there  is  a  piece  containing  22  acres  south  of  the 
road,  which  is  actually  above  the  road.  The  road  is  in  the  saddle  1065 
of  the  hill  and  brings  that  22  acres  above  the  road.  That  is  the 
piece  that  runs  down  to  the  Sierra  School  House,  and  is  outside 
the  watershed.  Part  of  the  water  from  there  runs  into  Harrison 
Gulch,  and  empties  toward  Santa  Clara  Valley.  The  22  acre  piece 
is  all  farming  land.  It  is  farmed  this  year.  I  valued  that  at  $75 
an  acre.  Referring  to  the  30  acre  piece,  the  10  acres  of  rough  land  ' 
in  that  I  valued  at  $15  an  acre,  and  the  20  acres  at  $60  an  acre; 
it  lies  off  where  it  is  a  little  colder.  It  is  part  of  the  Phoebe  Brandt 
place  still,  and  is  farming  land  with  some  good  springs.  Three  of  the 
A-l  springs  of  the  country  are  situated  on  this  piece.  It  is  all 
farming  land,  and  there  is  a  ravine  through  it.  I  value  that  at  $75 
an  acre. 

f-268,  King  piece ;  containing  85  acres ;  same  type,  but  no  where 
near  as  good  land  as  the  Brandt-Hansen  property,  because  it  is 
broken  up  too  badly.  There  is  a  good  deal  of  wood  there,  and  some  -^66 
farming.  Valued  at  about  $30  an  acre.  There  are  3%  acres  in  the 
reservoir,  but  there  is  no  difference  between  the  reservoir  and  farm- 
ing land  so  far  as  the  value  goes.  There  is  too  large  a  ravine  run- 
ning through  it. 

e-268,  Dennis  Cullen  place;  82  acres.  60  acres  of  farming  land, 
being  good  hill  farming  land,  which  I  valued  at  $80  an  acre.  The 
22  acres  that  remain  are  grazing  land,  valued  at  about  $30  an  acre. 
A  good  deal  of  timber  and  water  there.  Lies  right  in  the  head  of 
two  canyons  that  corner  there. 

c-268,  Levy  piece;  immediately  west  of  the  Dennis  Cullen  place, 
all  farming  land,  excepting  one  broken  end  that  lies  over  adjoining 
this  parcel  of  land  known  as  the  Brandt-Hansen  property ;  140  acres 
of  good  farming  land,  valued  at  $75  an  acre,  and  15  acres  of  broken 

301 


Parks 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

1067  pasture  land  for  grazing  purposes,  at  $25  an  acre.    There  has  been 
an  orchard  just  planted  on  what  is  known  as  the  Ede  property, 
which  adjoins  this  on  the  west.     They  are  planting  some  oranges 
and  some  apricots,  mostly  apricots  on  the  Ede  place.     The  Levy 
place  is  within  the  watershed. 

i-268,  Priesker  place;  there  are  60  acres  of  land  lying  north  of 
the  Sierra  road;  100  acres  lying  on  the  summit  south  of  the  road, 
and  the  balance  against  the  Bolinger  Ranch.  Referring  to  the  60 

1068  acres,  two-thirds  of  that  is  farming  land,  and  is  farmed  today;  the 
balance  has  broken  pieces  of  land  through  it.    There  are  40  acres  of 
farming  land  in  there,  and  I  would  value  that  at  $70  an  acre.    The 
20  acres  I  value  at  $20  an  acre.     The  100  acres  that  lie  right  on 
the  summit  is  good  farming  land,  and  well  worth  $75  an  acre.    The 
balance  of  the  land,  against  the  Bolinger  Ranch,  becomes  rough.    It 
is  farmed  in  the  hollows  and  the  hills.    Not  much  over  one-third  of 
that  farmed.     Would  be  A-l  pasture  land.     I  value  that  at  about 
$40.    It  would  outclass  good  grazing  land  by  leaving  in  the  farming 
land. 

Parcel  n-268,  Ferrerra  place;  containing  58  acres,  a  short  dis- 
tance east  of  the  Priesker  place.  It  is  good  grazing  land  outside  of 
the  road  running  there;  a  little  vineyard  on  it,  but  the  vineyard 
has  practically  become  dead.  I  valued  that  at  $25  an  acre. 

Parcel  o-268 ;  the  E.  B.  &  A.  L.  Stone  Ranch ;  containing  9  acres. 
I  would  give  that  the  same  valuation.  It  is  all  clear,  and  very  good 

1069  pasture  ground. 

EIGHTEENTH  HEARING.         AUGUST  9,  1915. 
Witnesses :    W.  W.  PARKS  and  W.  J.  MARTIN. 

1070  DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  OLNEY. 

Referring  to  Maps  16  and  18,  parcels  323  and  324 ;  the  65  acres 
of  watershed  land  on  the  west  side  was  $100  farming  land,  and  the 

1071  20  acres  watershed  on  the  east  side  was  $30  pasture  land.     There 
is  a  prune  orchard  on  the  south  side  of  the  valley  near  the  top  of 
the  mountain,  and  near  the  Sierra  road,  and  lying  directly  south 
of  the  Dennis  Cullen  place,  and  west  of  the  Patton  place.     (Cullen 
place,  e-268;  and  Patton  place  g-268.)     This  orchard  is  in  good 
shape,  being  about  15  years  old,  and  showing  a  very  good  growth. 
The  land  occupied  by  it  is  the  same  as  the  Patton,  or  Cullen  place. 
It  is  hilly  land,  the  balance  being  farming  and  orchard  land.     No 
other  orchard  of  any  size  in  that  locality,  outside  of  family  orchards, 

1072  such  as  on  the  Bolinger  place,  which  contains  probably  50  trees, 
which  are  in  very  good  condition. 

Map  18,  D-241 ;  northeast  quarter  and  east  half  of  the  northwest 
quarter  of  Section  31;  very  good  grazing  land,  valued  at  $30  an 


Parks 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

acre.  There  is  no  distinction  in  this  piece  between  the  land  which 
is  below  the  white  posts  which  mark  the  water  level,  and  that  which 
is  above. 

The  John  Sherman  property,  parcel  330,  which  is  east  of  the 
road  from  Milpitas,  as  you  get  into  the  valley,  is  now  planted  to 
corn.  The  corn  is  in  the  adjoining  field,  from  where  the  road  turns  1073 
directly  north  and  is  less  than  200  feet  to  the  corner  of  the  corn. 
It  was  planted  between  the  20th  of  April  and  the  1st  of  May,  by  a 
boy  named  Manuel  George,  who  is  farming  with  me  on  shares.  It 
has  not  been  irrigated,  is  there  now,  and  is  a  very  good  crop. 

Questioned  by  Master. 

This  is  the  first  year  that  corn  has  been  planted,  and  it  is  just 
ready  to  pick  now.  It  is  wheat  corn  and  very  good  corn. 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  OLNEY. 

The  corn  is  harvesting  now,  and  it  will  probably  be  three  weeks 
before  they  get  it  all  off.  This  corn  is  in  the  extreme  south  end 
of  the  valley,  which  is  the  poorest  land  for  corn  and  vegetables, 
but  this  is  a  very  good  crop,  so  I  am  informed  by  corn  men.  I  have 
raised  other  vegetables  in  the  valley  but  they  are  on  the  southeast  1074-1075 
side.  I  have  some  tomatoes  that  have  been  ripe  about  a  week  or 
ten  days,  and  I  have  cucumbers  and  summer-squash.  All  of  these 
I  have  irrigated. 

Parcel  j-268,  Williams  estate;  80  acres;  37  acres  farming  land, 
level ;  value  $75  an  acre ;  balance  pasture  or  grazing  land ;  value  $30 
an  acre.  The  white  line  of  the  reservoir  runs  right  at  the  base  of 
the  mountain,  which  is  the  farming  land  that  lies  on  the  level;  the 
outer  edge  of  the  farming  land  is  really  the  outer  edge  of  the  reser-  1076 
voir  site.  All  the  37  acres  lie  within  the  reservoir  site.  I  live  on 
the  line  of  these  two  properties,  within  100  feet  of  the  line  of  j-268 
and  just  inside  of  k-268,  the  Mary  Williams  property,  about  150 
feet  from  the  line  of  the  two  properties. 

Parcel  k-268,  Mary  Williams  place ;  45  acres  farming  land, 
valued  at  $75  an  acre.  The  balance  is  both  grazing  and  farming,  and 
valued  at  $35  an  acre.  I  have  farmed  this  property  for  five  years, 
for  hay,  and  have  gotten  from  a  ton  and  a  quarter  to  a  ton  and  a 
half  per  acre  off  from  it. 

Questioned  by  Master. 

It  was  red  oat  hay  and  is  on  the  ground  now.    I  sold  it  to  the 
San  Jose  Water  Co.  at  $12  a  ton.    All  the  pasture  land  is  without 
the  reservoir  site,  leaving  the  reservoir  site  entirely  made  up  of      1077 
farming  land. 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  OLNEY. 

Parcel  A-345,  Auctioneer-Bland  place,  79.33  acres.    25  acres  of 
very  good  farming  land  at  $75.    Balance  is  grazing  land,  valued  at 
$25.    The  land  within  the  reservoir  is  farming  land,  and  is  made  up       1078 
of  $75  an  acre  land. 

303 


Parks 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

h-268,  Patterson  place;  25  acres  good  farming  land,  valued  at 
$75  an  acre.  I  have  farmed  it  for  three  years ;  balance  grazing  land ; 
rough,  well  timbered,  with  plenty  of  water ;  valued  at  $25  an  acre. 

1-268;  321  acres;  old  Carrick  home;  70  acres  of  farming  land, 
valued  at  $60  an  acre;  balance  very  good  pasture  land,  at  $30  an 
acre.  The  70  acres  of  farming  land,  I  have  farmed  myself. 

m-268 ;  180  acres ;  a  part  of  the  Carrick  place ;  60  acres  farming 
land,  valued  at  $60  an  acre ;  balance  grazing  land  at  $20  an  acre. 
I  have  tilled  the  farming  land  in  this  tract. 

1079  Parcel  p-268,  called  the  Billie  Wright  place.     I  am  acquainted 
with  this  property,  and  all  of  it  is  very  good  grazing  land,  which 
I  valued  at  $30  an  acre. 

Section  32,  parcel  p-268  and  y-268,  containing  640  acres ;  one 
is  called  the  northeast  half  of  Section  32,  and  known  as  the  hog 
ranch ;  the  northwest  quarter  is  known  as  the  Dixon  Place.  The 

1080  southeast  quarter  is  known  as  the  Fennell  property.    The  north  half, 
which  is  very  rough,  I  valued  at  $15  an  acre,  and  on  the  south  half, 
which  is  very  good  land,  I  placed  a  value  of  $30  an  acre.     I  think 
that  the  land  being  in  one  piece,  is  worth  as  much,  if  not  more,  than 
what  I  have  appraised  it  at  parcel  by  parcel.    To  get  at  that  valua- 
tion, I  have  appraised  each  parcel  piece  by  piece.     I  am  familiar 
with  those  parcels  and  have  been  for  years.     In  placing  a  value 
upon  this  property,  I  have  not  considered  the  question  of  water 
supply  at  all,  any  more  than  the  water  for  the  use  of  the  range.   It 
would  make  an  A-l  cow  ranch,  because  it  is  made  up  of  a  country 
that  practically  lies  all  under  the  snow,  and  does  not  get  cold  enough 
to  hurt  cattle  as  long  as  you  have  feed.     I  value  it  very  high,  be- 
cause of  that  valley  being  there  for  green  feed  in  the  Fall,  and 
also  to  produce  all  the  hay  you  need  before  the  green  feed  is  on 

1081  the  ranges.    Also  you  have  feed  in  the  valley  when  the  cows  come 
off  the  ranges.     A  cow  ranch  without  that  insurance  as  to  feed, 
would  not  be  worth  much,  in  my  estimation,  because  you  must  have 
a  place  where  you  can  carry  hay  over  from  one  year  to  the  other. 
If  you  have  a  dry  year,  hay  will  go  up  if  feed  is  scarce.    A  man, 
one  year  after  another,  can  cut  hay  enough  to  insure  his  cattle  over 
any  ordinary  season  that  we  ever  have  had  in  that  country.     If  it 
is  dry  there,  it  is  dry  all  over.     My  main  experience  with   cow 
ranches  has  been  right  there.     I  have  bought  and  sold  cattle  for 
the  past  12  or  14  years.     I  have  shipped  cattle  from  Mexico;  from 
several  parts  of  Nevada,   and  from  many  parts  of  California   in 
there.     I   have   seen  most  of  the   cow  ranches   in   California  and 
know  them  very  well.     By  making  this  particular  property  into 
smaller  acreage,  it  could  be  subdivided,  so  as  to  make  more  than 
one  good  cattle  ranch.     There  are  about  three  grades  of  pasture 
land  on  that  range  of  mountains.     The  extreme  top  land,  up  to 
Black  Mountain,  Mt.  Lewis,  or  any  of  that  high  country,  will  take 

304 


Parks 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

about  nine  acres  to  keep  a  bullock  for  a  year.  Down  next  to  the  valley 
I  have  fattened  584  steers  on  about  5y2  acres  this  year.  They  came  1082 
in  on  the  ground  last  October,  and  have  already  gone  to  market. 
They  have  not  cleaned  up  all  the  pasture,  and  I  figure  there  is  forty 
percent  of  that  feed  left  this  year.  Other  years,  which  have  not 
been  so  strong,  there  probably  would  have  been  from  twenty  to 
twenty-five  percent  left,  as  I  figure  this  was  a  15%  better  year  for 
grazing. 

Questioned  by  Master. 

When  I  said  5%  acres,  I  meant  per  steer,  on  the  foothills  ad- 
joining the  valley,  which  is  the  land  that  I  have  appraised  as  graz- 
ing land  at  $30  an  acre. 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  OLNEY. 

The  third  grade  of  land  is  land  that  I  have  appraised  at  $15, 
$20,  $22.50  and  $17.50.  This  land  you  reach  as  you  climb  up  the 
hill  and  get  into  the  snow  lines.  It  is  worth  about  $6  or  $8  an 
acre  up  in  the  rougher  country.  As  you  gradually  drop  down  it  gets 
to  be  worth  more,  as  it  produces  more  feed,  and  the  grass  is  better. 

Questioned  by  Master. 

I  figure  that  that  would  run  about  6^/2  to  7  acres  a  steer; 
the  poor  lands  from  about  8  to  9  acres,  according  to  our  season.  1083 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  OLNEY. 

There  was  some  alfalfa  grown  14  or  15  years  ago  on  the  prop- 
erty known  as  the  Harris  &  Ham  property.  That  is  the  only  al- 
falfa that  I  ever  have  seen  growing  in  the  valley.  I  saw  it,  I  sup- 
pose, two  or  three  times,  and  I  imagine  that  was  within,  say  a  year 
and  a  half.  It  was  sub-irrigable  land,  and  right  in  back  of  the 
house.  Mr.  Wells  used  to  put  the  calves  in  there,  and  he  raised  the 
alfalfa  without  irrigation,  as  he  never  had  any  way  of  putting  water 
on  it.  Alfalfa  has  not  been  raised  on  this  land,  simply  because  you 
cannot  get  a  lease  long  enough  to  operate,  as  the  leases  are  from 
year  to  year,  and  that  is  as  long  as  they  will  issue  them  for.  My  1084 
lease  runs  from  year  to  year,  and  there  is  a  clause  in  it  that  pro- 
vides that  they  can  throw  me  out  without  any  cause  whatever  in  60 
days,  and  in  30  days  if  I  violate  any  of  the  clauses  in  the  lease. 
There  is  no  waste  land  in  the  valley,  but  there  is  foul  land  there, 
because  they  would  never  allow  anybody  to  put  cattle  in  behind 
the  crops,  and  naturally  it  grew  up  strong  and  went  to  seed  before 
the  farmer  could  get  around  to  it  again  to  take  care  of  it.  It  is 
not  foul  land.  The  only  trouble  is  you  cannot  use  the  land,  as  after 
you  harvest  your  crop,  this  heavy  stuff  will  grow  up,  and  it  is  hard 
to  get  out.  Cattle  will  clean  that  all  out  in  two  years'  time,  if  they 
will  allow  you  to  pasture  it.  That  has  been  the  cause  of  the  foul- 

305 


Parks 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

ness  of  the  valley.  At  the  south  end,  where  I  have  been  for  a  num- 
ber of  years,  and  they  did  not  hold  any  restrictions  on  my  pasturing, 
the  land  was  absolutely  clean. 

CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  STEINHART. 

1085  I  have  never  figured  the  value  of  this  ranch  (Harris  and  Ham)  as 
a  whole.  I  have  been  on  the  San  Ardo  Eanch,  which  is  just  below  Brad- 
ley, and  also  on  the  Santa  Margharita  Ranch,  which  is  the  J.  H.  Henry 

1086  ranch.    I  do  not  know  the  Eureka  Ranch.    These  prices  that  I  have 
figured  did  not  mean  that  the  land  would  sell  for  that,  as  I  figured 
only  that  it  would  pay  interest  on  this  money  at  a  rate  of  from 
6%  to  1%.    Those  small  parcels,  I  figured,  were  worth  the  amount 
I  placed  on  them.    That  portion  of  the  Wells  place,  being  200  acres 
at  $400  an  acre,  would  figure  $80,000  for  the  whole  portion.    I  have 
not  heard   of  many  ranches  of  200   acres  selling  in  Santa   Clara 
County  for  $80,000,  but  I  can  tell  you  of  a  ranch  sold  at  Eden- 

1087  vale  for  $1000  an  acre.    I  compare  the  Wells  place  with  this  Eden- 
vale  land,  which  was  the  Sheriff  Estate,  and  was  within  a  mile  or 
a  mile  and  a  half  from  the  state  highway,  and  close  to  Edenvale. 
He  bought  it  about  five  months  ago  with  some  small  improvements 
on  the  place.     I  do  not  own  any  land,  nor  have   I  ever  bought 
$80,000  worth  of  land  in  my  life.     I  have  been  in  and  around  the 
valley  since  1881,  and  have  had  experience  in  running  cattle  on  the 
Crocker-Dillon  land,  which  I  rented  before  I  rented  the  Spring  Val- 

1088  ley  land.    I  am  carrying  some  Crocker-Dillon  land  now  in  partner- 
ship with  S.  D.,  but  I  could  not  tell  you  the   acreage.     I  think 
there  are  some  there  within  the  neighborhood  of  from  4000  to  6000 
acres.    We  pay  about  $165  or  $170  a  section.    I  rent  about  11,000 
acres  from  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Co.  and  Archie  Parks  is  in- 
terested with  me  in  the  Spring  Valley  lease.     The  Crocker-Dillon 
land  we  have  held  under  lease  in  the  family,  and  Sam,  my  elder 

1089  brother,  is  carrying  it  on  today.     I  have  been  leasing  from  Spring 
Valley  since  1907  or  1908,  but  none  of  my  family  had  been  leasing 
before  that.    The  Sheriff  place  in  Edenvale  is  97  acres.    My  brother 
Sam  is  not  interested  in  the  Spring  Valley  lease.    My  brother  Archie 
is  the  only  one  who  is.     Two  years  ago,  I  ran  about  1200  head  of 
cattle  but  that   was  before   I   took   over  this  valley   property.      I 
started  in  with  the  Spring  Valley  people  with  1340  acres,  and  each 
year  I  gained  some  property.     The  Crocker-Dillon  land,  which  I 

1090  had  first,  I  got  in  the  early  nineties.    Before  I  got  the  Carson  place, 
I  was  renting  8000  acres  from  Spring  Valley  and  in  the  Spring- 
time, ran  about  1200  head  of  cattle.    This  is  the  time  when  we  are 
running  the  most  cattle,  and  during  that  time  we  ran  the  Crocker- 
Dillon  land  and  the  Spring  Valley  land  separated.     Consequently, 
I  could  not  say  how  much  we  did  run  in  both  together,  but  it  was 
more  than  1200. 

306 


Parks 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

I  had  about  4000  acres  of  the  Crocker-Dillon  place  but  I  do       1091 
not  know  how  many  of  my  own  cattle  I  ran  on  the  Crocker-Dillon 
place  and  on  the  Spring  Valley  land,  because  the  fences  were  poor 
and  the  lands  lie  together. 

The  Carson  lease,  I  got  on  December  15,  1914,  but  I  have  not 
leased  the  portion  covering  the  prune  orchard.    I  cannot  answer  the 
question  as  to  how  many  cattle  we  ran  throughout  the  year  as  an 
average,  but  I  told  you  we  had  about  1200  head.   I  do  not  know  how       1092 
many  head  we  sold  that  year,  and  I  will  have  to  average  what  we 
paid  for  three  steady  men  that  we  had  running  cattle,  because  we 
don't  pay  all  men  the  same  price.     We  get  three  men  for  $115  a 
month,  and  we  furnish  them  with  board,  horses,  and  saddles.     The       1093 
board  is  not  included  in  the  $115. 

I  think  I  commenced  my  lease  with  the  Spring  Valley  Water 
Co.  on  December  1,  1907,  and  have  been  paying  them  about  50  cents 
per  acre  per  year.  I  paid  them  $3,120  for  a  trifle  over  8,000  acres 
before  I  took  over  the  Carson  lease.  The  Crocker-Dillon  lease  runs 
from  year  to  year,  but  has  no  60  day  clause  in  it.  I  cannot  answer 
as  to  how  many  head  of  cattle  we  sell  on  an  average  a  year.  Last 
year,  to  the  best  of  my  knowledge,  we  sold  between  500  and  600 
head.  I  have  bought  and  sold  cattle  besides  that.  In  one  sale,  I 
sold  215  cows  to  a  man  named  Lessier.  The  Patterson  Bros.,  of 
Alvarado,  got  256  cows  and  calves  at  one  sale.  I  will  have  to  look  1094 
in  my  books  to  tell  how  much  we  got  for  those  cattle,  but  they  were 
all  stock  cows,  sold  from  that  range.  I  have  never  owned  any 
land  individually,  but  only  had  an  interest  in  an  estate,  which  was 
my  father's  home  place  on  Section  26.  I  rent  between  10,000  and 
11.000  acres  from  the  Spring  Valley  now,  and  I  pay  them  $5,100 
odd.  This  land  is  all  under  the  60  day  clause,  but  you  understand 
that  in  the  last  lease  of  the  valley,  it  is  only  for  ten  months. 

I  only  know  from  hearsay  what  Carson  paid  for  his  place.  We  1095 
keep  no  cattle  in  the  valley,  only  after  we  have  harvested  our  crop. 
When  it  starts  to  rain,  we  take  the  cattle  out  of  the  valley  land 
to  our  grazing  land,  but  I  have  never  taken  any  out  of  the  Spring 
Valley  or  Crocker-Dillon  land  on  to  other  land.  We  have  land  to 
the  west,  land  to  the  east,  land  to  the  south  and  land  to  the  north 
and  it  would  therefore  depend  where  we  would  take  them.  We  do 
not  buy  any  outside  feed  at  all. 

Parcel  323 ;  I  paid  $110  for  that  land  for  three  months,  in  order 
to  put  steers  on  it,  but  that  was  not  in  my  lease.  The  feed  was 
down  there,  and  I  bought  it  to  put  some  steers  on  until  the  feed 
started  in  the  Spring.  These  were  some  work  oxen  that  I  shipped 
from  Mexico  up  here. 

k-268,  Mary  Williams  place ;  I  farmed  that  to  hay  and  got  from 
a  ton  and  a  quarter  to  a  ton  and  a  half  of  red  oat  hay  per  acre  off  it.  1096 

A-345,  Auctioneer-Bland  place;  I  farmed  that,  and  got  red  oat 

307 


Parks 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

hay  there.    It  ran  very  good,  and  I  figure  that  two  years  ago  I  cut 
on  about  30  acres  of  farming  land,  34  or  35  tons  of  hay. 

h-268,  Patterson  place ;  I  farmed  this  for  three  years,  and  it  was 
good  land.  I  could  not  tell  how  much  I  got  from  it.  It  is  all  there 
on  the  ground  today.  The  baler  is  there  and  the  hay,  and  they  will 
start  baling  this  morning.  It  all  runs  about  the  same,  from  a  ton 
and  a  quarter  to  a  ton  and  a  half.  There  is  poor  land,  and  there  is 
better  land,  in  strips.  The  Williams  piece  was  good  farming  land  for 
that  class  of  land  there. 

1097  Referring  to  parcel  h-268,  I  could  not  tell  you  the  rental  I  paid 
for  it,  as  I  am  renting  it  as  a  whole,  the  entire  tract  of  land.    I  have 
not  seen  the  cattle  eating  the  grass  down  to  the  roots  this  year  on 
the  westerly  side  of  the  valley,  but  I  have  seen  that  in  past  years. 
That  occurred  two  years  ago  in  the  dry  season,  and  is  the  sign 
of  a  short  year. 

1098  Parcel  258,  Map  16 ;  I  think  it  was  homesteaded  by  a  man  by  the 
name  of  Miller,  and  thus  became  known  as  the  Miller  property.    I  do 
not  know  where  he  is  now.    This  land  has  been  used  for  grazing  land. 
The  Brannan  's,  referring  to  the  Brannan  place :    They  were  a  family 
that  took  up  that  property  but  what  they  did  with  it  I  could  not  say. 
Mr.  Walker  rented  it  in  the  very  early  part  of  the  Nineties  from  the 
Brannan  Estate,  I  suppose.    He  grew  hay,  but  I  do  not  know  what  he 
paid  for  the  place. 

1099  Parcel  225,  Bayne  place.    They  were  people  that  owned  a  foundry 
here  in  San  Francisco.    They  never  used  the  land,  except  for  summer 
outing;  that  is,  in  years  gone  by.   They  built  this  house  a  number  of 
years  ago  and  it  got  to  be  called  the  Bayne  house.    Afterwards,  the 
property  was  called  the  Bayne  place.    A  man  by  the  name  of  Bouchard 
used  to  farm  it  to  hay  and  they  lived  there  afterwards,  where  the 
Bayne  people  built  the  house. 

(The  witness  here  corrected  an  answer  he  had  made  in  regard 
to  the  Brannan  place.  He  stated  that  on  Section  18  he  had  seen  a 
threshing  machine  once,  and  that  he  may  have  stated  in  his  appraisal 
that  they  raised  all  hay  there.) 

1100  Parcel  W-268,  Weller  piece.  He  was  Justice  of  the  Peace  for  many 
years  at  Milpitas,  and  belonged  to  one  of  the  oldest  and  best  known 
families  in  Santa  Clara  County.     In  former  years,  he  lived  on  the 
Weller  ranch,  which  he  used  to  farm.    That  was  before  my  time  but 
I  imagine  he  got  fair  crops,  as  three  years  ago  they  had  a  fine  crop 
on  that  place.    I  cannot  account  for  the  fact  that  the  Spring  Valley 
Water  Co.,  in  1911,  got  that  land  for  $29  an  acre,  except  in  one  light; 
that  the  people  were  getting  tired  of  it,  as  they  had  picked  up  so  much 
of  this  land  that  they  had  run  the  school  houses  out  of  there.    There 
were  four  schools  there  at  one  time.    Now  there  are  not  any  children 

1101  — m  one  there  was  only  my  children,  and  two  others.     From  the 
Weller  piece  to  the  nearest  school  house  is  at  least  2%  miles  through 

308 


Parks 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

rough  country,  the  nearest  route  you  can  take.  It  is  west  of  the  Han- 
sen  place,  and  the  Hansen,  Campbell,  and  Santos  places  are  between 
the  Weller  place  and  the  school  house.  I  am  speaking  about  the  Air 
Point  school  house.  It  looks  as  though  the  people  had  been  gradually 
dropping  out  of  there  simply  on  account  of  the  schools. 

There  may  have  been  considerable  land  in  that  valley  not  owned 
by  the  Spring  Valley  in  1911,  but  there  were  no  people  living  on  them 
to  my  knowledge.  Patton  moved  out  four  or  five  years  ago.  Mr. 
Wool,  who  farmed  part  of  that  land,  has  a  home  in  San  Jose.  I  am  1102 
not  in  a  position  to  say  who  they  rent  their  land  from — there  are 
three  brothers  of  them — but  I  imagine  they  rent  from  the  Spring 
Valley.  The  Weller  place  has  been  farmed  by  Portuguese.  One  of 
the  Weller  boys  is  farming  with  me.  The  father  is  dead. 

Parcel  325,  Gaines  place;  none  of  my  hay  on  this  place  rotted 
particularly.  It  got  stained.  I  consider  it  an  advantage,  at  this  time 
of  year,  on  that  land,  to  have  the  hay  rot  on  it.  In  that  valley  land 
hay  runs  about  1^  tons  to  the  acre — volunteer.  The  sowed  hay  beat  it, 
running  about  2  to  2*4  tons  an  acre.  There  was  no  sowed  hay  on  the 
Gaines  place.  That  was  a  volunteer  crop.  The  Campbell  property, 
parcel  321  and  parcel  324  had  sown  hay  on  it,  which  ran  from  2  tons 
to  2^  tons  an  acre,  because  there  was  a  late  spring  this  year,  and  the  1103 
hay  rusts,  and  there  is  no  weight  in  rusted  hay.  That  is  the  reason 
why  it  ran  light.  Mr.  Carson  had  it  planted  in  previous  years,  and 
he  has  told  me  it  ran  as  high  as  3  tons  to  the  acre.  He  figured  that 
21/4  to  2y2  tons  straight  through  on  his  land  was  a  good  crop,  and  he 
was  there  thirty  years.  I  have  never  grown  alfalfa  myself.  In  regard 
to  this  land  that  there  is  corn  on,  there  was  never  a  previous  crop  of 
anything  else  on  that  land. 

Parcel  322,  Pomeroy  place ;  Mr.  Carson  grew  vegetables  there ;  as 
good  vegetables  as  anybody  could  find — not  for  the  market,  but  for 
himself.  This  is  as  good  vegetable  land  as  we  have  in  Pleasanton.  I  1104 
placed  $250  an  acre  on  this  vegetable  land,  which  is  not  the  usual 
price  for  such  land,  for  one  particular  reason,  and  that  is  you  have 
to  plant  your  vegetables  late  there.  Ground  that  faces  to  the  north 
a  little,  does  not  get  the  sun  in  the  early  part  of  the  season.  It  is  fine 
ground,  and  has  a  fine  stream  of  water,  but  the  condition  of  that  land 
is  what  I  based  my  value  on,  namely,  that  these  vegetables  would  have 
to  be  grown  later.  The  southerly  exposure  is  the  better  exposure  for 
vegetables.  I  have  not  bought  nor  sold  any  vegetable  land.  My  in- 
terests are  cattle  and  hay.  I  am  not  in  any  business  outside  of  the  1105 
stock  business,  and  outside  of  the  period  when  I  owned  the  lease  of  a 
hotel  in  Milpitas,  I  have  not  been  in  any  other  business.  I  owned  the 
hotel  there  for  four  years  but  did  not  run  it.  William  Carson  died, 
and  Jim  Carson  is  Superintendent  of  the  Alms  House  now.  Referring  1106 
to  parcels  323  and  324,  being  the  Ham  Harris  and  Wells  place ;  N.  E. 
Harris  was  a  man  that  ran  for  sheriff  some  25  years  ago.  Captain 

309 


Parks 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

Ham  owned  some  property,  and  had  interest  through  the  John  Sher- 
man property  in  Santa  Clara  County;  Wells  is  one  of  the  best  known 
men  that  Santa  Clara  County  has.  They  were  all  residents  of  Santa 
Clara  County  to  the  best  of  my  knowledge.  The  Harris  and  Ham 

1107  people  owned  their  places,  and  the  Wells  people  were  renters.     That 
land  has  been  used  for  farming  purposes,  and  some  orchard.    By  farm- 
ing purposes  I  mean  either  hay  or  grain,  and  vegetables  such  as  po- 
tatoes.   They  grow  potatoes  for  the  market,  and  about  18  or  20  years 
ago  I  saw  a  big  crop  right  east  of  Wells'  house,  and  I  have  seen  po- 
tatoes every  year  since,  up  till  last  year.     William  Carlson  grew 
these  potatoes  for  his  own  use.    The  only  crop  that  I  ever  saw  grown 

1108  for  the  market  was  between  15  and  20  years  ago,  and  the  tenant  at 
that  time  was  Mr.  D.  Wells,  who  continued  as  a  tenant  for  a  number 
of  years.  After  that  he  grew  hay  and  grain  and  that  place  runs  about 
3  tons  of  hay  to  the  acre.    The  average  run  would  be  about  2y2  tons 
to  the  acre.    The  orchard  on  the  Wells  and  Harris  places  was  a  family 
orchard,  and  the  fruit  was  not  grown  for  the  market. 

Y-268,  Totten  place.  He  was  a  blacksmith  who  lived  in  Milpitas, 
and  I  think  got  that  land  on  a  mortgage.  He  had  cattle  himself  on  the 
place. 

X-268,  Santos  place;  Joe  Roderick,  now  living  at  Berryessa, 
farmed  about  100  acres  of  that  to  hay.  It  ran  along  about  the  same 
as  the  hill  land,  about  a  ton  and  a  quarter  to  a  ton  and  a  half.  I  could 

1109  not  say  whether  anybody  is  leasing  it  now  or  not. 

p-268,  Jack  Jeffery  place.  He  was  a  wood  chopper  who  owned  that 
piece  and  sold  it  at  least  20  years  ago  to  the  Williams  Estate.  They 
used  it  for  cattle,  and  sold  it  to  I.  N.  Castle,  who  also  used  it  for  cattle. 
The  Castle  people  were  in  the  cattle  business  themselves,  and  they  ran 

1110  their  own  stock  for  about  three  years.     They  lived  on  the  Mary  Wil- 
liams property  where  I  am  living.     I.  N.  Castle  is  dead,  but  when  he 
was  running  there,  he  was  one  of  the  A-l  cattle  men  of  California. 
I  would  account  for  the  fact  that  I.  N.  Castle  sold  his  land  to  the 
Spring  Valley  Water  Co.  for  $8.31  an  acre  by  stating  that  he  sold 
his  ranch  there  and  went  down  and  rented  the  Malarin  Ranch,  which 
is  one  of  the  best  cattle  ranches  in  California  today,  because  he  could 
rent  52,000  acres  down  there  for  $18,000 — the  most  valuable  cow 
ranch  in  the  State  of  California.     He  needed  this  money  to  go  into 
the  cow  business  and  he  absolutely  went  out  to  raise  this  money,  to 

1111  buy  the  Freitas  cattle.     I  consider  he  made  a  considerable  sacrifice 
there.    I  did  not  buy  it,  because  I  was  not  connected  right  to  buy  it 
at  that  time.    That  is,  I  did  not  have  the  money  ready. 

H-268,  Map  17,  Walker  place,  north  half  of  Section  20;  Bever- 
son,  a  cattle  man,  who  was  engaged  in  running  cattle  on  that  place, 

1112  owned  it  before  the  Spring  Valley  owned  it.    Mendoza  owned  a  part 
of  Section  8.     Spring  Valley  bought  from  Hughes  and  Mendoza,  I 
imagine,  who  were  in  the  cattle  business.     They  were  running  them 

310 


Parks 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

there,  but  they  did  not  live  on  that  property.  I  do  not  know  the 
highest  elevation  of  the  land,  nor  could  I  say  exactly  the  elevation 
of  the  top  of  the  ridge. 

r-268,  north  half  of  Section  28,  southwest  quarter  of  Section  22 ; 
these  parcels  were  bought  from  Arnold.  I  think  he  was  the  home-  1H3 
steader  of  Section  22.  There  have  been  so  many  homers  there,  I  could 
not  tell  you  which  one  sold  to  Spring  Valley.  That  was  used  for 
cattle  before  the  Spring  Valley  bought  it,  and  they  raised  what  little 
hay  they  wanted  to  use  around  the  house.  No  more  of  it  was  farmed 
than  just  for  their  private  use.  Arnold  ran  cattle  there — a  man  by 
the  name  of  Carry,  and  my  Dad  also  ran  cattle  there.  I  could  not 
say  what  any  of  these  people  paid  as  rental. 

C-241,  Map  18- A,  Section  33;  that  is  grazing  land,  fair  for  the 
height  it  is  in.  By  that  I  mean,  lies  out  to  the  south,  and  any  pasture 
land  that  faces  to  the  south,  it  don't  matter  if  it  was  4000,  5000  or 
10,000  feet  high  in  this  range  of  mountains,  is  worth  double  what  it  is  1114 
when  it  faces  to  the  north,  and  when  you  get  into  the  high  country,  it 
is  not  as  good  land  as  the  low  country. 

Z-268 ;  That  is  the  Bland  place.  Bland  is  one  of  the  professors  in 
the  Normal  School  at  San  Jose.  It  is  also  known  as  the  Pat  Murray 
place  and  I  think  he  was  the  man  that  sold  to  Bland.  Bland  was  the 
grantor  to  the  Spring  Valley.  It  was  used  for  pasture  and  some  little 
farming,  and  this  man  Bland  had  it  done  for  him.  I  was  acquainted  1115 
with  Beverson,  who  was  a  cattle  man.  I  do  not  know  what  he  bought 
that  land  for ;  that  is,  what  he  paid  for  it ;  referring  to  the  north  half 
of  20,  I  do  not  know  what  he  paid  for  that,  or  how  long  he  owned  it 
before  he  sold  it  to  the  Spring  Valley.  His  home  place  was  north  of 
San  Jose  and  not  inside  of  the  city  limits. 

Parcel  321,  Carson  or  Campbell  place;  I  think  Campbell  was  the 
owner  Spring  Valley  bought  from,  but  I  don't  know  for  a  certainty. 
That  land  was  used  for  hay,  grain  and  orchard.     The  fruit  was  sold     1115^ 
and  one  of  the  orchards  was  prune.     I  could  not  say  who  had  that 
piece  before  Carson  had  it.    I  have  been  on  the  Peach  Tree  range —       1116 
Mr.  Miller's  land — located,  I  think,  part  of  it  in  San  Benito  County 
and  part  of  it  in  Fresno  County. 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  MCCUTCHEN. 

It  is  south  of  the  Bitter  "Water  Ranch,  about  30  or  35  miles  in 
through  those  hills.  It  is  a  ranch,  large  in  area  through  that  broken 
country,  and  pretty  hard  for  me  to  tell  what  county  it  is  in. 

CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  STEINHART. 

I  do  not  know  how  many  cattle  that  will  hold,  nor  how  many  it 
will  feed.  The  Sargent  Ranch  is  located  south  of  Gilroy,  but  I  do  not 
know  how  many  acres  there  are  in  it,  nor  the  price  that  it  was  for 

311 


Parks 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

1117  sale  for.    I  do  not  know  the  Nasienta  Ranch.    I  know  the  J.  H.  Henry 
Ranch,  but  do  not  know  what  that  sold  for,  nor  how  many  acres  there 
are  in  it,  but  I  know  it  is  a  large  area.    I  make  a  return  each  year  to 
the  assessor  as  to  the  cattle  I  own,  and  that  is  a  correct  statement  to 
the  best  of  my  knowledge.    I  made  a  return  for  200  head  of  my  own 
individual  cattle  on  the  first  of  March,  last  year,  and  the  year  before 
last,  I  made  a  return  on,  I  think,  300.   This  year  was  about  like  that. 
I  spoke  about  having  1200  head  on  there,  but  there  were  600  steers 
from  the  Clark  people  from  October  to  July,  and  those  cattle  are  still 

1118  on  there.     They  belong  to  the  Western  Meat  Co.    My  brother  takes 
care  of  all  of  the  pasture  cattle,  and  I  pay  no  attention  to  the  books. 
We  put  pasture  cattle  on  the  Spring  Valley  land  but  I  do  not  know- 
how  many  are  on  there.    This  is  a  good,  strong,  average  year  for  feed. 
Two  years  ago  we  had  somewhere  around  1100  or  1200  head  of  cattle 
on  there.    That  was  pretty  nearly  during  the  entire  year.    Cattle  go 
in  and  go  out  from  day  to  day.    I  could  not  state  the  number,  as  my 
brother,  who  is  there,  takes  care  of  that  matter.    Four  years  ago  we 
had  about  1100  head  on  there,  400  of  which  belong  to  the  Arrows  boys 
who  have  rented  the  Sargent  Ranch.    They  came  in  in  October,  1912, 
and  went  out  in  the  Spring  of  1914.    There  were  265  or  275  of  the 

1119  Sperry  Flour  Co.'s  that  were  on  there  just  about  the  same  length  of 
time,  or  possibly  two  years.    Last  year  we  sold  between  500  or  600  head 
of  our  own  cattle,  which  we  bought.    We  had  some  of  them  on  there 
possibly  60  days,  some  of  them  8  or  10  months,  and  some  of  them  2  or 
3  years.    500  head  of  the  cattle  which  we  sold  were  on  there  in  the 
spring  and  summer.    I  think  we  sold  the  last  lot  to  the  Patterson  boys 
some  time  in  the  fore  part  of  August,  but  it  is  impossible  for  me  to  tell 
you  how  many  cattle  we  had  on  that  range  after  we  sold  these  cattle 
in  August.     My  return  to  the  assessor  was  about  300  head,  which 
would  indicate  that  I  owned  in  March,  of  my  own  individual  cattle, 
300  head,  and  the  balance,  the  500  I  sold,  must  have  been  purchased 

1120  by  me  between  March  and  August.    I  bought  these  from  Carllitas,  in 
Mexico,  along  in  March,  I  think,  and  my  recollection  is,  I  sold  them 
in  August.     The  average  cow  man  figures  31/2%,  or  S1/^  cattle  to  a 
calf  as  a  natural  increase  year  in  and  year  out.    The  average  of  loss 
depends  upon  the  condition  of  the  weather  and  upon  the  feed  you 
have. 

Parcel  321,  Carson  or  Campbell  place;  The  farming  hill  land 
southwest  of  the  house,  I  valued  at  $100.  There  is  a  crop  of  red  oat 
hay  on  that  this  year,  grown  by  a  man  named  Pico,  which  runs  about 

1121  a  ton  and  a  quarter.    The  Roderick  place  was  used  for  farming  pur- 
poses, hay  and  grain,  barley,  oats  or  wheat.     That  is  good  farming 
land;  good  for  the  hilly  character  of  it,  and  runs  about  a  ton  and  a 
quarter  to  the  acre.    I  valued  one-half  of  that  at  $75  an  acre. 

1122  Parcel  331,  the  Sam  Sherman  piece ;  90  acres  at  $200  an  acre ;  60 
acres  at  $75 ;  and  10  acres  at  $25  an  acre.    The  $75  land  is  hay  ground, 

312 


Parka 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

and  is  in  hay  now,  running  probably  a  ton  off;  that  is,  about  a  ton  to 
the  acre. 

g-268,  Patton  place;  I  farmed  that  for  three  years;  two  years  ago 
to  oats,  and  last  year  to  barley.  I  sold  the  barley,  and  it  ran  about  a 
ton  to  the  acre,  to  a  man  named  Line.  Shaw. 

b-268,  Brandt-Hansen  place;   Charley  Brandt  has  been  raised      1123 
there.    He  is  the  farmer.     The  Hansens  are  the  road  masters;  they 
own  property  and  live  at  Lemon  Grove.     They  lived  there,  and  are 
farming  the  land  today  to  red  oat  hay. 

f-268,  Maggie  King  place;  they  were  two  old  maids  who  are  now 
living  in  San  Francisco.  They  lived  there  for  years,  and  used  the 
place  for  farming,  chickens,  and  raised  a  little  feed  for  a  few  milch 
cows.  They  farmed  the  place  for  hay. 

e-268,  Dennis  Cullen  place;  Cullen  was  an  old  Irishman,  a  bache- 
lor. He  was  a  farmer  and  a  kind  of  an  old  cow  man.  He  used  to  have 
cattle  way  in  back  of  this  land,  we  are  appraising.  He  used  to  farm  1124 
his  place  both  to  hay  and  grain.  He  died  ten  or  twelve  years  ago,  and 
his  place  was  sold  by  his  sisters,  to  Beverson.  He  farmed  it  also,  and 
used  it  along  the  same  lines.  Beverson  owned  80  acres  other  than 
that,  which  he  bought  as  a  speculation,  and  sold  again,  I  think,  to  the 
Spring  Valley.  I  have  no  idea  what  he  got  for  it.  It  is  a  good  piece 
of  ground,  and  for  hill  farming  it  is  an  A-l  piece. 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  MCCUTCHEN.  H25 

It  is  right  directly  north  of  the  prune  orchard  I  spoke  of  this 
morning.  It  does  not  bound  it  exactly,  but  the  place  where  the  prune 
orchard  is  lies  directly  north  and  northwest. 

CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  STEINHART. 

This  prune  orchard  was  there  when  Beverson  owned  the  place, 
and  I  would  state  that  the  line  to  the  prune  orchard  is  less  than  half 
a  mile  from  this  place.  The  prune  orchard  is  on  some  widow  woman 's 
land,  but  it  is  in  my  mind  that  the  old  lady  is  dead.  Their  name  is 
Collins.  It  is  not  on  the  same  side  of  the  road,  but  is  on  the  same 
slope  that  the  Dennis  Cullen  place  is.  I  could  not  say  that  the  prune 
orchard  was  on  the  Jeffery  Cullen  place.  (Mr.  McCutchen:  We  are 
informed,  Mr.  Steinhart,  that  that  was  the  name  of  the  owner.)  I  do 
not  know  what  Beverson  sold  to  the  Spring  Valley  for. 

The  Priesker  place  is  being  farmed  by  a  boy  named  Manuel 
George,  who  is  growing  hay  on  it,  and  he  told  me  two  years  ago  that 
he  cut  better  than  a  ton  and  a  half  to  the  acre.  It  was  high  and  wet. 
I  'd  class  that  ground  right  along  at  a  ton  and  a  quarter.  The  Priesker 
place  has  a  little  southerly  exposure  but  not  much.  It  is  right  on  the  1126 
top  of  the  summit.  It  is  not  a  good  exposure,  because  it  has  the  dif- 
ferent formations  in  the  mountain ;  one  part  would  be  formed  by  the 
little  round  mountains.  The  southerly  portion  of  that  place  is  right 

313 


Parks 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

on  top  of  the  summit.  The  little  round  mountains  are  coming  in  there 
and  in  between  them  are  7  or  8  acres  in  each  place.  I  had  no  particu- 
lar object  in  my  mind  in  mentioning  the  Bolinger  place  the  other  day, 
nor  did  I  have  anything  in  particular  in  my  mind  when  I  stated  that 
I  had  ridden  over  the  Priesker  place  thousands  of  times.  I  might 
have  said  that  that  property  I  valued  at  $40  an  acre  on  the  Priesker 
place,  is  bounded  on  the  south  by  the  Bolinger  place. 

1127  Parcel  324;  65  acres  on  the  west  side,  was  grown,  and  is  now  be- 
ing grown  to  hay  which  runs  about  a  ton  and  a  quarter  to  the  acre. 

The  Ballinger  place  is  south  of  the  Jeffery  Cullen  place,  and  the 
family  orchard  that  is  there  contains  a  few  peaches,  apricots  and  a  few 

1128  apple  trees.     It  is  a  family  orchard  now.     I  don't  think  there  was 
enough  so  that  it  could  ever  be  sold  in  the  market. 

h-268 ;  I  farmed  that  to  hay,  which  runs  fully  a  ton  and  a  quarter. 
That  is  a  very  good  piece  of  farming  land,  and  I  farmed  it  three  years. 
I  have  no  idea  of  what  rental  I  paid,  as  the  rental  includes  this  land 
as  well  as  the  other  land. 

n-268,  Section  5  and  part  of  Section  6 ;  I  farmed  60  acres  of  that 
a  year  ago,  and  the  year  before  that  to  oats,  which  ran  about  a  ton 
to  the  acre.  I  have  sold  pretty  nearly  all  the  hay  that  I  have  raised, 
and  whatever  hay  I  kept  I  put  in  loose.  I  cut  it  as  volunteer,  I  don't 
sow  it ;  I  have  1200  tons  of  hay  out  there,  today.  This  volunteer  hay 
is  from  parts  of  the  farming  land  that  I  do  not  farm,  and  I  feed  it  to 
my  cattle.  There  is  not  a  great  deal  of  land  in  the  State  of  California 
that  will  feed  one  steer  to  every  5^  acres  as  will  some  of  this  land. 
The  Malarin  Ranch  will  beat  it  a  little.  That  is  down  in  Monterey 
County.  The  Jimmie  Dunne  Ranch  in  Monterey  County  will  do  it, 
and  I  think  the  Sargent  Ranch  will  also  do  it.  I  think  the  Webber 
Ranch  right  off  of  Madrone,  Santa  Clara  County,  will  do  it.  I  do 
not  know  the  size  of  the  Webber  Ranch  but  I  have  handled  cattle  in 
and  out  of  there.  I  do  not  know  of  any  more.  I  have  a  restriction  in 
my  lease  from  the  Crocker-Dillon  people  that  I  must  not  cut  any  tim- 
ber, but  nothing  to  be  compared  with  those  in  the  Spring  Valley  lease. 

The  Master:  Q.  You  said  you  wanted  to  correct  something  in 
your  testimony,  Mr.  Parks.  A.  Oh,  yes,  it  was  about  the  assessor. 
My  brother  Arch  and  I  went  into  partnership  on  the  first  day  of  April, 
1914.  The  assessment  of  this  cattle,  for  which  he  keeps  all  the  books. 
He  can  be  called  at  any  time  and  he  will  testify  that  I  don't  go  into 
the  books  once  in  six  months,  he  keeps  the  books;  part  of  those  cows 
that  went  off  from  there,  he  shipped  in  at  Christmas  time  and  they 
were  his ;  so  that  on  the  first  of  April,  if  that  is  when  they  came  in  as 
company  cattle — they  were  in  his  name,  I  was  not  assessed  for  them. 

The  assessment  for  that  year  was  not  in  both  my  name  and 
Archie  Parks'  name.  For  the  previous  year  they  ran  straight  to  me. 
He  was  not  there. 

314 


Parks 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

(Counsel  for  Defendant  here  corrected  a  misstatement  made  by      1131 
him  in  relation  to  what  Mr.  McDonald  told  him  in  regard  to  prunes 
purchased  by  Mr.  Holmes  for  drying.) 

When  I  spoke  about  the  Jimmie  Dunne  Ranch,  I  meant  the      1132 
Donnelly  &  Dunne  Ranch  at  San  Felipe.    The  volunteer  hay  that  I 
got  and  baled  came  from  the  valley  part  of  the  land  that  I  did 
not  farm  this  year. 

RE-DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.   OLNEY. 

I  can  give  you  four  years  of  my  separate  sales  of  hay  and 
you  can  average  them.  Four  years  ago  it  went  to  N.  P.  Perry,  a  hay 
man  in  San  Jose,  at  $15.25  a  ton.  It  was  hauled  by  the  Hansen  1133 
teams.  Two  years  ago  I  sold  221  tons  to  the  Santa  Clara  Mill  & 
Lumber  Co.,  for  $22  a  ton;  hauled  by  St.  Clarence.  (Witness  stated 
that  this  was  some  200  and  odd  tons,  he  could  not  say  exactly.) 
Last  year  I  sold  to  the  San  Jose  Water  Co.,  the  Welshcol  Whole- 
sale Grocery  Co.,  San  Jose,  and  also  to  Mangrum  &  Otter,  for  $11 
a  ton.  This  covers  practically  all,  excepting  a  few  tons  scattered 
around.  This  season,  I  got  $12  for  one  lot  of  red  oats  hay,  between 
80  and  100  tons  of  it  delivered.  I  have  received  $7  in  the  field  for 
one  lot.  of  volunteer  hay.  I  have  received  from  Manuel  George 
$8.50  in  the  field  for  one  lot  of  red  oat  hay;  them  I  have  stained 
cow  hay  to  go  to  the  Western  Meat  Co.,  and  from  350  to  700  tons 
at  $6  a  ton. 

Questioned  by  Master. 

That  is  in  the  field.  I  sold  also  to  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Co., 
in  the  field,  for  $9  this  year,  which  they  took  down  to  the  dam  site. 

RE-DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.   OLNEY. 

Some  of  this  hay  I  sold  for  $12  a  ton,  and  others  for  $8,  but  one 
was  delivered  while  the  other  was  in  the  field.    Last  year  I  sold  it      1134 
for  $12. 

Questioned  by  Master. 

That  was  delivered. 

RE-DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.   OLNEY. 

The  third  season  back,  I  sold  for  $22  a  ton,  delivered,  and  the 
season  before  that  for  $15.25  a  ton,  delivered.  I  figure  the  expense 
of  raising  and  baling  hay  at  about  $5.50  a  ton  to  the  cars.  I  figure 
that  as  the  outside,  planting,  harvesting,  baling  and  delivering. 

RE-CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  STEINHART  jjg- 

I  sold  hay  at  $8  a  ton  in  the  valley  within  the  last  two  weeks, 
and  some  at  $12,  delivered  at  San  Jose,  within  the  last  three  weeks. 
I  sold  some  last  year  at  $12,  delivered  at  San  Jose,  and  the  year 

315 


Parks 

VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 


before  last  I  sold  some  at  $22,  delivered,  and  I  never  expect  to 
see  hay  at  that  figure  again.  The  year  before  that,  I  sold  at  $15.25 
a  ton,  delivered  at  the  cars  at  Milpitas. 

1136  Questioned  by  Master. 

My  deliveries  are  all  at  Milpitas  on  board  the  cars. 

RE-CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  STEINHART 

On  the  hill  land,  we  very  rarely  plow.  It  is  disked,  and  costs 
about  50  cents  an  acre.  We  sow  it,  disc  it  and  harrow  it,  and  we 
are  done  for  the  season,  until  we  commence  to  harvest  it.  We 
never  plow  it.  It  would  produce  a  crop  year  after  year  without 
plowing.  We  figure  about  $1  an  acre  on  seed.  On  barley,  about  90 
Ibs.  of  seed  to  the  acre,  and  on  oats  about  80  Ibs.  Last  year  I  bought 

1137  seed  at  two  different  prices.    I  bought  barley  at  95  cents,  and  later 
on  I  paid  $1.91  a  hundred  pounds  for  the  same  barley.     The  price 
for  barley  and  oat  seed  is  not  the  same.    This  refers  to  barley  seed 
only. 

Barley  was  the  highest  last  year  that  is  known  in  history.  Oats, 
I  think,  I  paid  $1.51  or  $1.61  for  per  hundred  last  year.  I  bought 
them  about  this  time  of  the  year.  I  figure  on  sowing  barley  about 
90  Ibs.  to  the  acre,  and  on  decent  sowing  on  hill  land,  60  to  70 
acres  a  day,  with  two  horses  and  two  men.  I  pay  the  man  about 

1138  $1.25  a  day  and  board  him,  but  I  do  not  figure  my  own  time  at 
all.     The  horses  I  own  and  keep  all  the  time,  and  I  hardly  know 
how  to  figure  the  expense  of  them,  but  I  would  figure  that  you  can 
take  care  of  the  two  for  75  or  80  cents  a  day.    I  have  never  figured 
out  what  it  costs  for  the  care  of  them;  I  know  that  a  four-horse 
harrow  would  cut  three  acres  an  hour  right  along,  and  working 
about  ten  or  ten  and  a  half  hours  a  day,  that  is  about  30  to  35  acres 
a  day.    We  harrow  only  once  over  disked  ground  in  the  hill  lands, 
and  on  a  harrow  that  will  harrow   31   acres  a  day,   I  use  four 

1139  horses  and  one  man.     I  do  not  lap  any  when  I  harrow,  and  I  do 
not  roll  it.    We  are  using  a  5%  foot  mower,  and  have  been  mowing 
about  12  acres  a  day,  with  two  horses  and  one  man.    I  pay  the  man 
$1.25  a  day.    We  do  not  stack  at  all.    We  bunch  it,  but  that  is  all 
owing  to  the  roughness  of  the  ground.    A  man  with  a  good  buncher 

1140  will  bunch  at  least  40  tons  a  day  in  good  windrows  behind  a  good 
rake  man.    We  pay  a  bunch  man  the  same  as  the  others,  and  board. 
We  only  use  one  man  to  a  buncher,  and  two  horses.    Baling  is  $1.25  a 
ton  for  me  on  a  big  job.    The  wire  I  furnish.    A  bunch  of  it  cost  me 
this  year  $1.10,  and  it  bales  8  tons  of  hay  on  an  average.    I  do  not 

1141  use  any  men  in  baling  but  only  in  this  bucking  to  the  trap.    I  bale  with 
a  baling  press  that  is  contracted  from  Tony  Brannan,  of  Milpitas,  and 
from  Johnny  Valencia.    By  that  I  mean  I  contract  for  the  baling  of 
the  hay  at  $1.25  a  ton.    I  use  two  bunch ers  to  bring  the  hay  to  the 
press,  and  two  or  four  horses,  four  on  the  hill  land,  and  two  on  the 

316 


Parks 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

valley.  Those  two  men  I  pay  the  same  rate  as  the  others.  I  have  four 
horses  on  the  hills  to  bring  the  bunches  to  the  press,  but  we  never  use 
over  two  bucks  at  any  time.  The  cost  of  delivery  is  a  little  less  than  $1. 
The  average  run  of  baling  a  day  is  about  40  tons,  but  that  would  be 
owing  to  how  much  the  hay  weighs.  The  cost  of  haul  is  less  than  a 
dollar,  about  90  cents,  and  a  five-horse  team  takes  out  8  tons  to 
Milpitas.  1142 

Questioned  by  Master. 

I  have  not  done  it,  but  they  have  asked  me  if  I  am  going  to  do 
it  on  this  lot  of  hay  just  already  sold.  Other  people  have  been 
doing  it. 

RE-CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.   STEINHART 

Mr.  Hansen  did  it  two  years  ago,  and  it  ran  about  5  horses  to  8 
tons  of  one  load  a  day.  They  don't  pull  both  wagons  over  the  mount- 
ains at  the  same  time.  It  is  only  6y2  miles  from  the  field  to  the 
depot,  so  they  only  pull  one  wagon  with  4%  tons  to  the  top  of  the 
hill,  and  then  they  bring  up  the  other  wagon,  and  take  the  two 
wagons  down  hill  to  the  train.  They  load  about  4%  tons  on  the  front 
wagon,  and  about  3^2  on  the  rear  wagon.  What  I  mean  is  this; 
we  take  the  3*/2  tons  and  pull  it  to  the  top  of  the  hill  with  five 
horses.  We  then  take  the  horses  back  and  use  them  on  the  next  load. 
Then  we  use  the  five  horses  to  take  the  two  wagons  which  we  couple 
up  at  the  top  of  the  hill,  down  to  Milpitas.  We  have  a  roustabout  1143 
boy  to  help  load,  and  he  is  generally  one  of  the  steady  men,  getting 
about  $30  a  month.  The  driver  we  pay  $1.50  a  day  and  board  him. 
He  goes  into  Milpitas  and  back  in  from  7  to  8  hours.  Sometimes  we 
insure,  and  it  costs,  I  think,  $2.50  on  the  thousand  for  about  three 
months.  Maybe  I  have  that  wrong.  Last  year  I  insured  100  tons 
of  hay  in  one  particular  barn,  and  it  seems  to  me  it  was  only  $12.50 
in  the  barn.  I  do  not  insure  in  the  field  at  all.  I  insured  the  hay 
in  the  barn  with  the  St.  Paul  Fire  Insurance  Co.,  James  A.  Clay-  1144 
ton  Co. 

I  own  my  own  farm  implements,  but  I  did  not  figure  the  cost 
of  my  tools  into  the  price  that  I  ha.ve  given.  I  would  not  dare  1145 
to  say,  without  going  to  the  ranch  and  going  over  it,  how  much  of 
an  investment  my  mowers,  harrows,  bucks,  sowing  machines, 
wagons,  rakes,  horses,  harnesses,  etc.,  represents.  I  do  not  know 
what  the  upkeep  of  those  utensils  amounts  to  in  a  year,  for  the 
reason  that  you  might  have  five  runaways  in  one  year.  You  might 
have  none,  or  you  might  have  twenty. 

I  did  not  include  interest  on  my  investment  when  I  gave  $5.50 
a  ton  as  the  entire  total  cost.    I  just  gave  you  a  rough  estimate.    I 
figure  planting  and  harvesting  in  that.     The  $4.50  is  for  planting      1146 
and  harvesting,  and  the  $5.50  includes  delivery.    The  hay  that  I  sold 

317 


Parks 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

at  $22  a  ton,  was  delivered  to  Santa  Clara,  but  the  price  was  the 
same  as  all  these  prices,  f.  o.  b.  Milpitas.  When  I  say  delivered, 
1147  I  mean  delivered  f.  o.  b.  at  the  cars.  I  could  not  state  how  many 
acres  I  had  in  hay  without  going  back  over  the  maps.  The  year 
before  I  had  about  the  same  number  of  acres  that  I  had  last  year. 
This  hay  we  sell  as  soon  as  it  is  baled,  and  we  have  never  stored 
any  hay  yet.  In  the  estimate  of  $4.50  a  ton,  which  is  an  estimate 
in  my  mind  of  that  land  there  that  I  am  used  to  working,  I  did  not 
include  rent,  taxes,  nor  interest  on  my  investment,  because  I  did 
not  own  it. 


1148  Witness :    W.  J.  MARTIN. 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  OLNEY. 

I  am  a  land  agent  and  manager  for  the  South  San  Francisco 
Land  Improvement  Co.,  and  am,  and  have  been  since  1890, 
acquainted  with  the  lands  in  South  San  Francisco  and  its  imme- 
diate vicinity.  I  have  been  the  land  agent  for  the  South  San  Fran- 
cisco Land  Co.  since  1891,  and  am  familiar  with  the  values  of  land 
in  and  about  South  San  Francisco.  I  am  acquainted  with  the  piece 
of  land  immediately  south  of  the  town  of  South  San  Francisco,  be- 
longing to  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Co.  There  were  45.78  acres 
swamp  land,  and  4.27  of  hard  land,  making  50.05  acres  which  I 
sold  to  the  Spring  Valley  myself.  (Map  9,  parcel  168.)  I  have 
sold  all  the  land  that  has  been  sold  there,  and  in  my  judgment  the 
market  value  of  that  property  on  December  31,  1913,  was  not  less 
than  $1500  an  acre. 

CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  STEINHART. 

1149  I  sold  the  land  to  the  Prestolight  people  for  $2000  an  acre, 
and  that  is  located  right  across  the  track  to  the  west  of  the  Spring 
Valley  piece.     The  county  road  running  through  there  was  closed 
about  60  days  ago  at  the  crossing,  by  the  Railroad  Commission. 


NINETEENTH  HEARING.       AUGUST  10,  1915. 

"Witnesses:    GEO.  C.  HOLBERTON,  FRED  J.  RODGERS  and  WALTER 
R.  HOAG. 

Holberton  DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  OLNEY. 

1150  I  have  resided  for  four  years  just  west  of  Redwood  City,  and  am 

familiar  with  the  lands  of  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Co.,  in  and  about 
the  southern  end  of  the  Crystal  Springs  Reservoir.    I  have  been  fa- 

'''••<  318     •- 


Holberton 

SPEING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

miliar  with  these  lands  since  1906,  and  I  own  land  in  that  vicinity, 

which  is  probably  about  half  a  mile  from  the  Spring  Valley  land.    I 

have  a  contract  for  the  purchase  of  other  lands  adjoining  mine,  which 

go  to  the  limit  of  the  Spring  Valley  property.    I  reside  about  one-half 

or  three-quarters  of  a  mile  from  the  Spring  Valley  land,  and  am  fa-       1151 

miliar  with  the  going  values  of  properties  in  that  locality. 

Referring  to  "Plaintiff's  Exhibit  8",  page  5,  the  lands  which  I 
own,  and  which  I  have  under  contract,  are  those  that  adjoin  the  plot 
marked  164  on  the  easterly  side,  and  I  would  say,  by  and  large,  that 
the  market  value  of  that  property,  plot  164,  on  December  31,  1913, 
was  $150  to  $200  an  acre.  Parcel  202,  which  lies  immediately  south, 
is  worth  a  little  less  than  164,  and  the  parcel  202,  that  is  marked  92 
acres,  and  which  lies  still  further  south,  is  worth  about  the  same  as 
164,  and  I  would  easily  value  it  at  $150  to  $200  an  acre.  The  parcel 
to  the  north,  marked  202,  containing  some  90  acres,  I  would  say  was 
worth  a  little  bit  less,  due  to  the  character  of  the  soil ;  there  is  consid- 
erable rock  outcrop  in  that  which  does  not  exist  in  either  of  the  other 
parcels,  and  it  is  also  a  trifle  steeper.  If  164,  and  the  southerly  202 
is  worth  from  $150  to  $200  an  acre,  the  other  is  probably  worth  from 
$125  to  $175  an  acre,  or  $25  difference.  1152 

Parcel  203  is  the  same  as  the  southerly  parcel  202.  The  land 
which  I  have  under  contract,  and  which  adjoins  parcel  164,  is  for 
about  300  yards  to  the  east  of  164  just  the  same  as  164,  and  then  that 
land  drops  off  very  steep  on  the  easterly  side  of  the  ridge;  approxi- 
mately 300  yards  east  of  the  easterly  line  of  lot  164  is  the  so-called  top 
of  the  ridge,  and  the  portion  that  lies  east  of  the  top  of  the  ridge,  is 
absolutely  inaccessible.  When  I  go  on  to  the  upper  end  of  my  place, 
I  drive  south  of  the  little  creek  on  the  northerly  portion  of  the  north- 
erly 202,  and  then  go  through  Spring  Valley  lands  in  order  to  get  up 
on  to  mine,  and  up  to  the  ridge  the  land  is  just  the  same ;  from  there 
down  there  is  considerable  of  it  that  is  almost  valueless.  The  north- 
erly border  of  202  shows  a  curved  line,  which  is  a  portion  of  a  creek, 
a  deep,  steep  ravine,  and  there  is  considerable  property  in  there  that 
has  no  market  value,  because  it  is  waste  land.  You  have  to  go  down 
near  the  Parkinson  place,  one-eighth  to  a  quarter  of  a  mile  further 
east,  before  you  get  any  suitable  land  at  all.  In  this  land  on  the  west- 
erly side,  which  is  a  rolling  country,  the  contours  are  easier.  The 
ridge  is  just  east  of  that  easterly  line;  then  here  these  contours  are 
very  abrupt,  and  they  do  not  cease  till  they  get  down  to  a  little  tri- 
angular piece  where  the  arrow  is  above  the  name  Marchand,  which  is 
occupied  by  a  party  by  the  name  of  Parkinson.  There  is  about  13 
acres  in  there,  and  that  is  the  beginning  of  the  flat.  The  reason  that  H53 
this  land  is  so  much  less  valuable  in  202,  is  the  fact  that  it  is  so  steep 
here. 


319 


Holberton 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 
CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  STEINHART. 

The  land  I  have  under  contract,  runs  from  the  easterly  line  of 
164  down  to  the  city  limits  of  Redwood.  I  own  four  lots  in  the  John- 
son subdivision,  for  one  of  which  I  paid  $550  an  acre,  for  another  $500 
an  acre,  and  for  the  others  $450.  The  city  limits  are  over  on  the  other 
side  of  them.  These  lands  are  near  the  ridge  beyond. 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  OLNEY. 

You  go  over  a  ridge,  and  then  you  get  into  this  little  valley,  and 
as  you  come  up  the  valley,  the  land  is  worth,  perhaps,  $500  an  acre, 
but  the  land  at  the  extreme  westerly  end  is  very  low  in  value. 

Map  entitled  "Map  of  the  County  of  San  Mateo  compiled  from 
the  County  Records  by  Davenport  Bromfield"  introduced  and  re- 
ceived as  "Plaintiff's  Exhibit  39". 

1154  CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  STEINHART. 

I  am  mainly  in  the  employ  of  the  Pacific  Gas  &  Electric  Co.  Ap- 
proximately 50%  of  this  land  that  I  have  under  contract  is  steep,  and 
possibly  33  1/3%  of  it  I  value  at  $500  an  acre.  The  land  referred  to 
is  under  contract.  That  contract  was  given  in  consideration  of  work 
which  I  had  done  for  the  Allis-Chalmers  Co.  on  the  property  during 
the  first  three  or  four  years  that  I  owned  any  land  down  there.  They 
anticipated  that  it  would  take  some  time  to  dispose  of  that  land,  and 
gave  me  a  contract,  such  that  in  their  judgment  the  amount  of  money 
paid,  plus  the  interest,  that  they  had  saved  in  the  work  that  I  had 
done,  would  let  them  out — somewhere  near  the  option.  I  believe  they 
got  the  land  for  a  debt  from  Mr.  Dingee.  I  understand  from  hearsay 
that  he  owed  a  certain  sum  of  money  for  machinery  delivered  to  the 
Davenport  cement  plant,  and  this  land  was  taken.  The  land  covered 

1155  by  this  last  contract  is  approximately  779  acres,  or  to  be  correct  779.34 
acres.    The  purchase  price  was  work  already  done,  for  which  nothing 
had  been  received,  and  the  sum  of  $85,000,  plus  interest  which  com- 
menced January  1,  1915,  at  6%  for  five  years.     The  interest  was  to 
accumulate,  and  was  to  be  paid,  I  think,  on  January  1,  1917,  or  1916, 
I  am  not  sure  which.    The  contract  provided  that  it  was  to  be  paid 
in  full  on  January  1,  1920,  and  if  not  paid  at  that  time,  I  had  the 
right  to  extend  from  year  to  year  by  increasing  the  values  of  the  re- 
maining land.     The  property  which  the  Allis-Chalmers  people  own, 
and  near  which  I  live,  is  situated  in  a  canyon.    Some  time  ago  a  man  in 
the  employ  of  Mr.  Dingee  built  a  dam  across  that  canyon,  undoubtedly 
for  the  purpose  of  getting  gravel  for  construction  purposes,  and  that 
was  allowed  to  fill  up  with  gravel,  and  not  being  removed,  the  water 
finally  broke  off  to  one  side,  washing  out  the  entire  road,  and  a  great 
deal  of  their  land.    When  I  came  there  I  put  in  teams  and  scrapers, 
and  cleared  the  creek,  thus  diverting  the  water.    We  have  been  work- 

320 


Holberton 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

ing  at  it  ever  since  to  get  it  back  where  it  belonged,  so  that  the  lower 
road  could  be  constructed.  That  work  cost,  I  would  say,  approxi- 
mately $5,000.  I  do  not  know  what  Finkler  paid  for  his  land,  but  he 
bought  the  Marchand  ranch. 

Questioned  by  Mr.  Olney.  1156 

The  Finkler  property  is  about  what  you  might  call  the  average 
of  the  other  land.  His  land  is  not  so  steep  as  the  westerly  end  of  my 
land,  and  is  not  as  good  as  the  Spring  Valley  land.  If  you  could  find 
out  what  Mr.  Finkler  paid  for  his  land,  the  land  lying  to  the  west  of 
the  ridge  would  be  worth  perhaps  50%  more  per  acre. 

CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  STEINHART. 

In  figuring  the  rough  land  on  my  land,  that  lies  immediately  east 
of  the  ridge,  I  never  figured  that  in  as  being  fit  for  anything  save 
possibly  pasture.  I  have  not  figured  that  of  any  value,  and  do  not 
think  it  will  be  for  many  years  to  come. 

(Admitted  by  Counsel  for  Plaintiff  that  the  date  of  the  contract 
withHolberton  was  December  29,  1914.) 


Witness :    FRED  J.  RODGERS.  Rodgers 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  OLNEY. 

I  reside  in  San  Francisco,  and  am  manager  of  the  Easton  Estate. 
I  have  had  to  do  with  lands  in  the  neighborhood  of  San  Andres  and      1157 
Crystal   Springs   Reservoir,  in  connection  with  the   Easton   Estate, 
which  is  composed  of  Ansel  M.  Easton  and  Adeline  M.  Easton.    Both 
of  them  have  interests  consisting  of  considerable  land  in  that  locality. 

Questioned  by  Master. 

It  would  all  be  indicated  by  these  maps,  and  has  been  held  for 
over  50  years. 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  OLNEY. 

The  last  eleven  years  we  have  sold  about  $2,000,000  of  property 
for  the  Eastons,  part  of  which  adjoins  the  Spring  Valley  property 
near  San  Bruno,  and  between  the  lakes,  and  also  adjoins  Spring  Val- 
ley parcels  on  both  sides  between  the  lakes.  The  Eastons  and  the  1158 
Mills  have  only  the  watershed,  and  that  goes  through  the  property  of 
the  Spring  Valley  Water  Co.  I  do  not  represent  the  Mills,  but  we 
worked  closely  together.  Quite  a  little  of  the  Easton  property  has 
been  sold  off  in  acreage,  and  some  in  lots  and  small  acreage.  I  am 
fairly  familiar  with  the  values  of  property  in  that  locality,  and  I  have 
made  a  list  of  some  of  the  larger  transactions  which  have  been  made 
in  that  immediate  locality,  beginning  up  at  our  holdings  at  the  north 
end,  and  also  showing  the  figures  we  have  refused  for  some  of  the 
property. 

321 


Rodgers 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.   CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

Eef erring  to  "Plaintiff's  Exhibit  8",  page  2,  parcel  144;  I  have 
been  on  that  property,  and  I  have  taken  those  parcels  as  one  unit, 
beginning  at  144,  and  coming  down  to  16-42,  which  includes  parcels 
144,  51,  53,  15,  18,  17,  218,  20,  19,  21,  16  and  42.  Most  of  the  original 

1159  boundaries  have  been  lost,  and  it  is  almost  impossible  to  state  just 
what  is  in  one,  and  what  in  the  other,  but  there  is  no  great  difference 
in  the  properties.     I  have  been  over  the  property  both  ways,  and  I 
have  made  a  memorandum  of  where  our  properties  abut  on  some  of 
this.    The  parcel  which  I  have  mentioned  is  the  parcel  going  up  the 
northern  end  of  the  San  Andres  Reservoir,  and  includes  the  land 
lying  along  the  east  of  that  reservoir.    I  have  not  crossed  the  lake  at 
all,  not  being  so  familiar  with  it  there,  and  my  transactions  have  been 
limited  to  this  end.     I  came  down  to  parcel  42,  which  is  that  small 
piece,  they  got  from  the  Mills  Estate.    In  valuing  that,I  have  taken 
it  as  a  whole,  614  acres.     I  have  not  regarded  any  of  the  land  em- 
braced in  the  lake,  but  have  left  that  out  because  I  knew  nothing 
about  it.    The  other  part  I  put  in  at  $475  an  acre,  and  that  is  lower 
than  we  have  sold  at,  and  refused  offers  for.    The  land  varies;  some 
places  it  is  better,  and  in  some  not  so  good,  but  it  is  considerably  below 
what  we  have  refused  to  sell  our  own  for. 

Questioned  by  Master. 

This  land,  below  which  we  have  refused  to  sell  our  own  land  for, 
is  adjoining;  the  back  land  adjoins  parcels  144,  51,  53  and  15,  and 

1160  there  is  a  piece  belonging  to  Eastons,  and  a  piece  belonging  to  the 
Mills  Estate  in  there.    In  1912,  we  refused  an  offer  for  the  Mills  and 
Eastons  jointly,  because  they  would  not  take  one  without  the  other, 
of  $1000  for  the  lower  land,  and  $650  for  the  back  land. 

Questioned  by  Mr.  Steinhart. 

That  offer  was  made  through  Mr.  Boody,  from  a  syndicate  headed 
by  Mr.  Louis  Titus. 

DIRECT   EXAMINATION  BY   MR.   OLNEY. 

Our  land  slopes  toward  the  east,  but  the  back  is  very  rough, 
and  through  the  north  end  the  fences  were  destroyed,  so  that  it  is 
not  easy  to  state  where  the  boundaries  are.  The  land  of  the  Spring 
Valley  Water  Co.  lies  a  little  better,  and  the  outlook  is  more  pleasing 
toward  the  western  hills,  and  the  slope  is  better.  Further  back, 
past  the  Capuchino  lands,  Scott  told  me  he  would  not  sell  under 
$1000.  This  is  the  land  that  we  have  refused  the  offers  for,  this  275 
marked  "Ansel  M.  Easton",  and  this  386  marked  "D.  O.  Mills". 
The  386  was  put  at  $650  an  acre,  and  the  400  acres  in  the  front  at 

1161  $1000  an  acre.     Of  the  Easton  land,   about  20  acres  would  have 
come  in  at  $1000  an  acre,  and  about  255  acres  would  have  been  at 
$650.    This  is  the  Easton  land  that  is  southeast  of  the  Mills  Estate, 
and  marked  275.     When  we  refused  that,  Boody  took  a  firm  offer, 

322 


Rodgers 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

and  he  turned  it  over.  He  offered  this  413,  Flood  piece,  at  $750  an 
acre.  That  does  not  adjoin  it,  but  it  does  help  to  put  a  value  on 
that  land.  That  also  was  refused.  The  next  piece  of  land  on  the 
north,  also  adjoining  parcel  15,  is  the  Capuchino  Land  Co.,  which 
was  at  one  time  Easton  land,  and  was  left  by  Mr.  Easton  to  his 
daughter,  Jennie  Easton  Crocker,  and  which  afterwards  became 
the  Capuchino  Land  Co.  Mr.  Scott  told  me  that  they  would  not 
sell  under  $1000  an  acre  for  the  whole  thing.  The  back  is  very 
rough,  and  it  is  practically  the  poorest  piece.  I  have  been  told  the 
Colmans  held  this  at  $1000  an  acre,  and  I  know  the  Bayside  Com- 
pany did.  This  is  the  Taylor  property.  Then  comes  the  Mills  land, 
and  ours ;  we  are  the  only  ones  that  cross  into  the  watershed.  Be- 
tween the  two  lakes  we  have  300  acres,  and  the  Mills  Estate  have 
about  275  acres,  and  that  land  the  Spring  Valley  negotiated  to  pur- 
chase from  us  in  the  Summer  of  1910,  at  $500  an  acre,  and  the  water 
right.  We  could  not  agree  on  the  water,  as  we  wanted  3  million  1162 
gallons,  and  the  Spring  Valley  wanted  to  cut  us  down.  This  100 
odd  acres  on  the  opposite  side,  with  a  road  through,  we  are  now 
preparing  to  cut  up,  and  we  are  going  to  try  to  get  within  the  next 
six  months,  $1500  an  acre  for  it.  That  is  subdivided  into  about 
acre  pieces.  We  have  built  a  road  through  here  to  a  point  where 
we  have  sold  to  Felton  E.  Elkins  (21  acres),  which  piece  we  sold 
to  him  at  $1250  an  acre,  away  below  the  market..  The  house  cost 
him  $50,000  or  $60,000,  and  we  thought  at  the  time,  by  getting 
him  in,  it  would  bring  up  our  other  property.  That  is  approximately 
600  to  1000  feet  from  the  top  of  the  ridge,  and  is  a  knoll  just  west 
of  the  ridge. 

Questioned  by  Master. 

It  is  in  what  was  formerly  called  the  A.  M.  Easton  place,  and 
is  marked  on  the  map  "560  acres". 

Questioned  by  Mr.  Steinhart. 

That  was  not  a  part  of  the  subdivision.  It  was  back  of  the 
subdivision,  which  is  some  distance  further  east.  1163 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  OLNEY. 

The  top  of  the  knoll  that  Elkins  bought,  I  should  judge,  may  be 
100  feet  below  the  summit  of  the  ridge.  Further  east  and  north,  we 
sold  to  Mr.  Kohl  quite  a  piece  at  $2500  an  acre,  and  we  have  since 
got  rid  of  a  good  piece  here,  498  acres,  to  the  Panama  Realty  Co. 
We  have  taken  in  exchange  some  city  property,  on  the  basis  that 
the  property  pays  somewhere  around  6  or  6^/2%  on  the  valuation 
we  have  taken  it  for.  (Testimony  objected  to  as  immaterial,  irrele- 
vant and  incompetent,  and  Counsel  for  Plaintiff  admits  that  the  testi- 
mony is  objectionable.) 

The  sale  to  Kohl  throws  light  on  the  value  of  this  land,  because 

323 


Rodgers 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.   CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

we  sold  there  at  $2500  an  acre,  and  also  a  small  piece  in  addition 
at  $2000  an  acre,  which  he  wanted  for  a  reservoir  site.  We  have 
sold  small  acreages;  the  Harriet  Stetson  piece  at  $3500,  which  is 

1164  situated  in  the  A.  M.  Easton  piece.     The  Stetson  place  was  about 
3%  or  4  acres,  and  is  about  half  a  mile  from  the  top  of  the  ridge, 
and  comes  closer  .to  the  Spring  Valley  land.     We  have  sold  quite 
a  little  small  acreage  in  what  we  call  the  Burlingame  Hills,  and 
that  runs  from  $4000  to  $7000,  and  is  in  subdivision.    That  subdi- 
vision does  not  include  the  acreages  in  the  streets.    It  is  net.     The 
lands  of  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Co.,  which  lie  to  the  east  or  that 

1165  portion  of  the  Crystal  Springs  reservoir,  which  lies  north  of  San 
Mateo  Creek,  I  have  placed  a  valuation  upon.     That  is  parcels  73 
and  90  on  Plaintiff's  Exhibit  8,  page  3.    I  have  taken  all  of  parcel 
73,  leaving  out  any  of  the  lake  or  submerged  lands,  which  leaves 
276.45  acres  that  is  not  submerged.    Parcel  90,  I  have  divided  into 
two  units;  one  unit  of  655.94  acres  adjoining  73.    Those  two  pieces 
of  73  and  90,  I  have  valued  at  $500  an  acre.    The  remainder  of  par- 
cel 90,  some  209.16  acres,  which  is  a  portion  of  the  Howard  tract 
along  Crystal  Springs  dam,  and  is  rather  rough,  I  have  valued  at 
$300.    In  getting  at  the  values,  I  had  to  take  into  consideration  what 
we  had  sold  at  ourselves,  and  what  we  had  held  out  our  own  land 
at,  and  also  the  fact  that  the  southerly  end  is  really  nearer  the 

1166  good  improvements  than  the  northerly  end.    By  the  northerly  end, 
I  mean  the  San  Andres  property.    The  Crystal  Springs  is  closer  to 
good  improvements,  to  Carolan's  and  Crocker's,  and  it  helps  very 
much  in  increasing  values  to  be  close  to  improvements  of  that  kind. 
I  was  inclined  to  appraise  it  at  a  higher  figure,  but  would  not  go 
beyond  the  figure  that  we  ourselves  had  put  on  our  own  property 
at  the  time,  regardless  of  the  water  right.    There  are  no  other  sales 
in  that  locality  that  I  have  personally  made,  that  would  throw 
any  light  on  this.    The  Carolan  sale  was  made  at  some  $300  an  acre, 
and  I  took  the  matter  up  with  Mr.  Carolan  and  Mr.  Bowie,  because 
it  gave  our  land  there  a  black  eye,  and  we  did  not  like  that  sale  very 
much. 

I  based  my  information  also  upon  the  sale  of  the  Hobart  land. 
That  was  fairly  close,  and  was  at  a  fairly  good  price.  I  took  all 
the  sales  that  have  been  made  into  consideration.  Walter  Hobart 

1167  sold  to  Charles  W.  Clarke  270  acres  there  at  $750  an  acre.    That  was 
in  April,  1913.    That  land  runs  immediately  southwest  of  the  tract 
marked  "San  Mateo  City  Homestead",  and  it  is  marked  "W.  S. 
Hobart,  282  acres".    I  could  not  say  whether  the  homestead  prop- 
erty comes  up  to  it  or  not,  and  cannot  say  that  it  does  adjoin  it, 
but  it  does  adjoin  the  Parrot  Estate.    On  this  map  it  lies  southwest  of 
the  City  of  San  Mateo,  and  is  marked  "W.  S.  Hobart,  282.32  acres". 
It  is  very  rough  land,  not  quite  as  rough  maybe  as  these  200  odd 

1168  acres  of  the  Spring  Valley  that  I  have  put  in  at  $300  an  acre.     I 

324 


SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

think  it  is  rougher  than  the  balance  of  the  Howard  tract,  parcel  90 
and  parcel  73. 

Another  sale  is  the  Armitage  Orphanage,  which  Mr.  Antone 
Borel  bought.  That  was  about  24  acres,  and  it  approximated  gross 
over  $2000  an  acre.  There  was  a  building  there,  which  I  believe  he 
had  to  tear  down.  This  piece  adjoins  the  Antone  Borel  piece  of 
144.39  acres,  and  is  marked  on  the  map  "Armitage  Orphanage". 

I  am  familiar  with  the  sale  of  Tevis  to  Whitman.  Mrs.  Whit- 
man, who  is  a  niece  of  Mr.  Wm.  H.  Crocker,  bought  about  143 
acres  of  the  Tevis  land,  which  ran  about  $1845  an  acre.  That  land 
is  further  down,  and  is  the  piece  marked  "Mabel  Tevis",  consisting  H69 
of  143.62  acres.  It  is  about  a  mile  easterly  of  parcels  73  and  90, 
adjoining  where  the  boundary  line  comes  in.  It  is  lower  on  the 
easterly  slope.  I  have  no  other  information  that  I  can  think  of 
at  the  moment. 

CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  STEINHART. 

This  Tevis  piece  at  one  end  is  practically  next  to  San  Mateo 
Park,  but  I  would  not  say  exactly.  The  Armitage  Orphanage  piece 
seems  to  adjoin  the  City  of  San  Mateo  on  this  map. 

Questioned  by  Mr.   Olney. 

I  have  a  list  of  the  specific  sales  of  the  Easton  properties,  and      1170 
have  borne  in  mind  my  valuations  as  of  December  31,  1913. 

CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  STEINHART. 

The  Hobart  piece  appears  to  adjoin  the  San  Mateo  City  Home- 
stead on  this  map,  and  is  right  in  back  of  the  W.  A.  Clarke  place. 
The  front  of  it  is  one  of  the  show  places  down  there.  The  Carolan 
place  runs  near  to  the  Spring  Valley  lands  which  I  have  appraised. 
The  Capuchino  Land  Co.  fronts  on  the  state  highway,  as  does  that 
adjacent  to  D.  O.  Mills  piece,  and  the  Ansel  Easton  piece,  Hunt- 
ington  Park.  The  Easton  subdivisions,  which  I  have  spoken  of, 
and  the  sales  made  in  those  subdivisions,  are  not  all  in  improved 
subdivisions.  The  small  sales  at  from  $3500  to  $4000  or  $7000  were  H71 
in  Burlingame  Hills,  except  the  Felton  E.  Elkins,  and  the  Kohl 
places,  which  were  outside.  In  Burlingame  Hills,  improvements  con- 
sisted simply  of  an  oiled  road.  The  street  car  line  does  not  go 
there,  but  goes  to  a  point  from  which  you  can  reach  it.  In  those 
high-priced  sales,  the  size  of  the  sales  ran  all  the  way  from  %  of 
an  acre  to  2  and  3  acres. 

RE-DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.   OLNEY. 

The  portions  of  the  Easton  and  Mills  tracts  for  which  we  were 
offered  $650  an  axjre,  toward  the  back,  do  not  front  on  the  highway. 
That  is  the  rough  back  end,  toward  the  San  Andres  Lake  property 

325 


Rodgers 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

belonging  to  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Co.  Toward  the  front,  we 
have  made  some  sales  of  $1000  an  acre,  but  that  is  some  time  ago, 
in  1906  or  1907,  and  for  subdivision.  We  sold  Lomita  Park  in  1904, 

1172  and  that  got  us  about  $1250  an  acre.    D.  O.  Mills  sold  at  that  point, 
100  acres  at  $1000  an  acre  on  the  county  road.     The  automobile 
has  had  a  great  influence  upon  the  value  of  such  lands  as  the  Spring 
Valley  lands,  and  adjoining  lands  of  that  character  somewhat  re- 
moved from  the  railroad,  as  has  also  the  development  of  the  county 
road.    It  has  had  an  especial  effect  upon  the  lands  that  I  have  dealt 
with,  because  we  have  taken  a  road  to  within  probably  600  or  700 
feet  of  the  road  that  the  Spring  Valley  have  along  their  easterly 
line  at  the  top.     If  those  roads  were  connected,  and  it  would  be 
very  easy  to  do  it,  the  machines  that  now  go  up  through  the  middle 
of  the  A.  M.  Easton  piece,  could  continue  on  and  go  through  the 
Spring  Valley  land,  and  it  would  really  bring  them  in,  especially  as 
we  are  considering  extending  our  car  line,  and  have  made  tentative 
plans  to  the  summit,  to  open  up  our  own  lands.     In  a  general  way, 
the  highway  has  resulted  in  probably  6000  or  7000  machines  going 
past  our  land,  and  some  of  them  through  it,  according  to  the  figures 
the  county  officials  have  given  me.     That  is  why  we  are  going  to 

1173  open  our  lands  across  the  lake.    Our  experience  seems  to  have  been 
that  the  demand  for  the  back  lands  today  is  greater  than  the  de- 
mand for  the  front.    The  people  that  buy  the  back  lands  are  those 
who  have  machines,  and  they  can  reach  them  now,  whereas  they 
could  not  before. 

RE-CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  STEINHART 

The  Easton  addition  to  Burlingame  was  really  offered  before 
the  earthquake,  about  in  1905.  That  is  east  of  the  highway.  The 
second  addition  of  the  Easton  subdivision,  was  somewhere  about 

1174  December,  1905,  and  that  was  to  the  west  of  the  highway,  and  front- 
ing thereon.     The  third  one  was  filed  probably  near  the  end  of 
1906,  and  also  fronts  on  the  highway,  but  with  rather  a  narrower 
frontage  than  No.  2.     The  only  one  of  the  Easton  additions  that 
fronted  the  railroad,  was  the  Easton  addition  to  Burlingame,  which 
is  not  really  numbered.     The  other  tract  is  about  five  city  blocks 
back  from  the  Southern  Pacific  and  the  United  Railroads.     Subdi- 

1175  vision  No.  4  was  probably  filed  in  March,  1907,  and  the  state  high- 
way runs  along  the  front  of  it.    There  is  a  very  narrow  frontage  on 
the  highway.    That  is  some  distance  from  the  Southern  Pacific  and 
the  United  Railroads.     The  next  one  was  the  Easton  addition  to 
Burlingame,  No.  5,  which  was  filed  in  1911,  and  then  withdrawn. 
That  has  a  very  narrow  frontage  along  the  highway.    The  next  one 
was  Easton  addition  No.  6,  filed,  I  think,  about  1912.    We  withdrew 
that,  so  that  it  would  not  be  necessary  to  put  in  improvements, 
which  we  did  not  care  to  do  at  that  time.    The  next  one  was  possibly 

326 


Rodgers 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.   CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

in  October,  1912,  when  we  only  offered  several  blocks  to  work  back 
to  the  old  land.  There  may  be  half  a  dozen  or  so  houses  on  that, 
but  I  won't  say,  as  we  are  still  building.  It  is  about  15  minutes' 
walk  from  the  station  at  Easton.  The  last  one  was  the  Burlingame  1176 
Hills,  put  on  July  7,  1913,  containing  about  45  acres.  Part  of  it 
overlooks  San  Francisco  Bay.  It  is  adjacent  to  the  Easton  resi- 
dence, which  is  beyond,  and  somewhat  to  the  south  of  addition 
6  and  7.  There  is  only  one  house  there.  The  car  line  runs  from  the 
end  of  Easton  addition  No.  7.  Easton  addition  No.  1  was  72.78 
acres.  I  could  not  tell  you  how  many  houses  are  there.  I  could  not 
tell  you  how  many  houses  there  are  in  Easton  addition  No.  2,  nor 
could  I  say  as  to  the  number  of  houses  in  Easton  addition  No.  3.  1177 
We  stopped  selling  Easton  addition  No.  5  when  we  began  to  offer 
additions  6  and  7  for  sale,  and  probably  about  the  beginning  of 
1913.  Easton  addition  No.  7  is  building  up  in  a  very  satisfactory 
manner. 

FURTHER  RE-DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  OLNEY. 

The  railroad  which  the  Easton  Estate  operates  goes  to  the 
upper  end  of  the  property  which  we  sold  to  Mr.  Kohl,  and  is  within 
probably  a  little  over  a  half  a  mile  of  the  Elkins  property,  and 
about  the  same  distance  in  another  direction  from  the  Stetson  piece. 
I  think  a  mile  and  a  quarter  would  take  it  past  the  Carolan  place.  H78 
The  Templeton  Crocker  place  is  some  distance  back  from  the  state 
highway.  It  is  on  the  Half  Moon  Bay  road.  The  De  Guigne  place 
is  back  from  the  highway  a  considerable  distance,  and  is  nearer  the 
Spring  Valley  lands.  The  Carolan  place  adjoins  the  Spring  Valley 
lands,  and  the  W.  H.  Crocker  place  is  also  back,  and  adjoins  the 
Spring  Valley  lands.  A  great  many  of  the  fine  places  are  back  from 
the  main  highway,  but  not  all  of  them.  The  Clarke  place  is  not. 
The  Kohls  have  gone  back  some  little  distance.  The  W.  H.  Crocker 
place  is  back;  also  the  De  Guigne  place,  and  the  Elkins  place  will 
be.  There  is  a  disposition  to  go  in  the  hills  which  has  been  more 
noticeable  the  last  four  or  five  years.  1179 

FURTHER   RE-CROSS   EXAMINATION    BY    MR.    STEINHART 

The  Easton  and  the  Mills  people  have  owned  these  properties 
for  something  like  50  years. 

Burlingame  Addition  No.  1,  72.78  acres ;  Easton  Addition  No.  2, 
97.87  acres;  Easton  Addition  No.  3,  41.35  acres;  Easton  Addition 
No.  4,  45.27  acres ;  Easton  Addition  No.  5,  18.41  acres ;  Easton  Addi- 
tion No.  6,  10.35  acres ;  Easton  Addition  No.  7,  46.15  acres ;  and  the 
Burlingame  Hills,  45.89  acres. 

Questioned  by  Mr.  Olney. 

The  total  acreage  which  we  have  sold,  as  near  as  I  can  figure 
it,  is  about  1260  acres.  The  total  in  figures  is  about  $2,034,000.  I 

327 


Rodgers 


1180 


SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

have  heard  that  the  land  which  the  Eastons  and  the  Mills  bought 
did  not  cost  them  very  much  at  the  time.  I  don't  think  anybody, 
today,  really  knows.  I  imagine  it  did  not  cost  very  much.  Of  the 
1200  odd  acres  that  we  have  sold,  the  first  piece  was  put  on  in  1904, 
which  includes  Lomita,  and  includes  the  subdivisions  and  the  large 
pieces. 


Hoag  Witness:    WALTER  R.  HOAG. 

DIRECT    EXAMINATION    BY    MR.    GREENE. 

I  placed  a  valuation  of  $100  per  acre  for  the  1322  acres  out  of 
the  watershed  on  the  West  Union  land. 

1181  The  parcel  lying  to  the  southeast  of  that  dotted  line,  I  valued 

as  of  December  31,  1913,  at  $250  per  acre. 


TWENTIETH  HEARING.         AUGUST  16,  1915. 
Witnesses :    A.  S.  BALDWIN  and  C.  E.  GRUNSKY. 

Baldwin  RECALLED  FOR  DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  OLNEY. 

1186  With  reference  to  the  lands  in  San  Mateo  County,  which  I  have 
valued,  I  have  made  no  report  as  to  differences  in  value  of  the  various 
parcels  of  land  between  the  different  years  involved  in  the  suits.    Deal- 

1187  ing  with  those  lands  as  a  whole,  I  think  it  is  fair  to  say  that  the  values 
for  the  years  1912,  1913  and  1914  are  about  the  same.    The  difference 
between  the  valuation  for  1913  and  1911  is  not  greater  than  five  per- 
cent, so  that  a  valuation  for  1911  of  95  percent  of  the  1913  value  would 
be  somewhere  in  the  neighborhood  of  what  is  right,  if  you  apply  it  to 
all  the  lands.    In  the  same  way  for  the  year  1910,  the  valuation  would 
be  at  least  90  percent  of  the  1913  value,  and  for  the  years  1907,  1908 
and  1909,  it  would  be  at  least  85  percent  of  the  1913  valuation. 

1187-1188  Counsel  for  Plaintiff  here  stated  that  it  was  understood  that  no 

testimony  contrary  to  these  percentages  would  be  introduced,  and  that 
they  may  be  taken  as  constituting  the  differences  so  far  as  the  penin- 
sula lands  are  concerned.  This  applies  to  all  that  Mr.  Baldwin  cov- 
ered in  his  testimony,  with  the  exception  of  the  Lake  Merced  lands  in 
San  Francisco  and  San  Mateo  Counties. 

Also  understood  that  Counsel  for  Defendant  is  satisfied  with  Mr. 
Gale's  testimony  that  there  had  been  substantially  no  change  in  the 
valuations  of  the  Alameda  properties,  with  the  exception  of  the  Pleas- 
anton  lands,  as  to  which  he  testified  that  a  change  had  occurred  in 
about  1910.  The  city  may  wish  to  contend,  and  offer  testimony  to  the 
point  that  the  change  in  the  Pleasanton  lands  took  place  at  a  little 

328 


Baldwin 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

later  date.    Also  understood  that  no  testimony  will  be  put  in  in  re- 
gards to  the  Alameda  or  the  Santa  Clara  lands,  and  in  case  an  agree- 
ment is  not  reached  in  the  matter  of  the  Pleasanton  lands,  it  is  to  be 
understood  that  Counsel  for  Plaintiff  will  introduce  testimony  to  sub-       1189 
stantiate  the  statement  which  Mr.  Gale  made.  1190-1191 

The  stipulation  reached  is  that  Mr.  Baldwin's  statement  covers 
all  the  lands  of  the  company  which  have  been  valued  in  San  Mateo 
County,  or  which  will  be  valued  in  San  Mateo  County,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  the  Lake  Merced  tract,  and  also  such  lands,  if  any,  that  Mr. 
Baldwin  may  have  valued  in  Santa  Clara  County.  Mr.  Gale's  testi- 
mony is  to  cover  the  lands  on  the  east  side  of  the  Bay  in  Santa  Clara 
and  Alameda  Counties,  and  is  to  govern,  with  the  exception  of  the 
Pleasanton  lands,  which  are  to  be  taken  up  further. 

A  list  of  all  sales  which  Baldwin  &  Howell  have  made  in  San      1192 
Mateo  County  is  offered  and  received  in  evidence  as  "Plaintiff's  Ex- 
hibit^". 

The  official  map  of  San  Mateo  County  is  introduced,  on  which 
have  been  colored  the  properties  sold  by  Baldwin  &  Howell  in  and 
around  San  Mateo.  The  terra  cotta  color  indicates  the  property  we 
have  sold  in  that  vicinity.  The  green  indicates  the  lands  still  owned 
by  such  families  as  the  Parrots,  the  Howards,  the  Bowie  Estate,  also 
the  Brewer  and  the  Doyle  property.  Those  that  are  indicated  in  white 
are  the  greater  portion  of  the  lands  which  have  changed  hands  since 
1897,  but  which  have  not  necessarily  all  been  sold.  1193 

Questioned  by  Mr.  Steinhart. 

This  is  an  official  map  which  I  had  colored,  and  which  I  checked 
up  myself,  and  know  it  is  correct. 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  OLNEY. 

All  of  the  white  has  not  been  sold,  but  practically  all  of  the  prop- 
erty down  west  of  the  railroad  has  changed  hands,  until  you  get  into 
town,  where  there  have  been  comparatively  few  sales.  The  Spring 
Valley  property,  in  relation  to  this  map,  is  immediately  west  of  it  and 
adjoining  it.  West  is  approximately  the  top  of  the  map. 

Questioned  by  Mr.  Steinhart. 

The  place  marked  ' '  Poniatowski "  has  all  been  sold.  This  was 
originally  the  old  Reddington  Place,  and  was  bought  by  Poniatowski 
through  us  in  1897  or  1898.  The  whole  place,  up  to  the  boundary 
line  of  Grant's  place,  is  now  owned  by  Mr.  Crocker. 

Received  as  "Plaintiff's  Exhibit  41". 

The  Carolan  place  goes  right  to  the  line  of  the  Spring  Valley 
property  on  the  west.    The  white  portion,  "Harriet  P.  Carolan",  cov-       1194 
ers  the  Carolan  place  of  about  500  acres. 

329 


Baldwin 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 
DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  OLNEY. 

The  piece  marked  "  Jennie  C.  Whitman"  was  bought  from  Tevis. 
The  total  amount  of  sales  from  1897  to  date  in  San  Mateo  County,  as 
made  through  my  office,  is  $3,713,814.  The  total  amount  of  sales  of 
acreage  property  is  net  $1,603,730.20.  This  covers  the  land  alone,  and 
with  the  improvements  it  would  total  $1,676,230.20.  The  total  acreage, 
exclusive  of  marsh  lands,  is  6,632.896  acres.  The  marsh  lands  amount 
to  3,353.28  acres. 

CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  STEINHART. 

The  marsh  land  sales  are  included  in  the  list,  and  are  principally 

1195  the  purchase  of  the  Ravenswood  lands,  with  the  exception  of  the 
Brewer  Ranch,  which  was  sold  about  four  years  ago.     The  Ravens- 
wood  sale  is  on  the  third  page,  Hearst  to  Morrison,  under  date  of 
January  17,  1902.    They  constitute  now,  a  part  of  the  Spring  Valley 
holdings,  as  does  also  the  next  piece.    This  was  all  marsh  land.    The 
only  other  sale  was  that  of  July  23,  1902, — Frisbie  tract — which,  so 
far  as  I  know,  is  practically  all  high  land.    It  is  not  included  in  my 
average  of  marsh  land  sales.    Another  piece  that  is  included  is  a  sale 
of  July  15,  1911,  of  1800  acres,  known  as  the  Brewer  Ranch.    It  ap- 
pears on  "Plaintiff's  Exhibit  39",  in  Sections  22,  23,  24  and  26,  Town- 
ship 4  south,  Range  4  west,  and  is  marked  Brewer  &  Tompkins.    I  did 
not  handle  all  of  these  sales  personally,  but  did  handle  a  great  many 

1196  °^  them,  while  the  others  were  handled  by  employees  of  our  company. 

The  Robert  L.  Coleman  sale  to  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Co.  is  the 
present  Millbrae  Pumping  Plant  lot.  The  Poniatowski  sale  is  a  piece  to 
the  west  of  Spring  Valley.  I  do  not  know  the  exact  location  of  the 
H97  sale  from  Page  to  Dickinson. 

The  sale  of  15.50  acres,  Poniatowski  to  Baldwin,  is  a  portion  of  the 
present  Crocker  tract  to  the  east. 

The  2.85  acres,  Flood  &  Mackay  to  Baldwin,  is  part  of  the  strip 
between  the  county  road  and  the  railroad,  which  was  purchased  for  the 
water  company.  The  pipe  line  purchases,  or  rights  of  way  purchases 
in  this  list,  are  the  rights  of  way  between  Colma  and  Baden. 

The  next  purchase  is  Charles  H.  Abbott  to  B.  P.  Oliver  and  J. 
Costa,  of  the  Clark  Ranch,  and  is  known  as  the  B.  P.  Oliver  purchase. 

The  next  is  3.93  acres  on  the  Middlefield  road,  Menlo,  Josephine 
Frank  to  W.  B.  Weir,  $20,000.  That  is  in  Menlo  Park,  about  two 
1198  blocks  from  the  station  on  the  Middlefield  road. 

The  next  is  10.2  acres,  near  San  Mateo,  Bonestell  to  Barneson, 
located  southwest  of  San  Mateo,  not  far  from  the  Beresford  Country 
Club. 

The  next  is  20  acres,  San  Mateo,  estate  of  Alvinza  Hayward,  to  E. 
J.  De  Sabla,  which  is  immediately  north  of  the  old  Hayward  Home 
place,  opposite  the  Frederick  Kohl  place. 


Baldwin 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

The  next  is  84  acres,  the  portion  of  the  Clark  tract  west  of  sub- 
division 2,  San  Mateo  Park,  Carmany  to  Borel,  which  is  a  portion  of      1199 
the  property  that  was  sold  to  Oliver  and  Costa,  and  is  the  westerly 
portion  of  what  is  now  known  as  San  Mateo  Park. 

Johnson  Ranch,  1159  acres,  near  Redwood  City,  is  northwest 
thereof,  and  west  of  the  railroad.  It  constitutes  what  is  now  known 
as  White  Oaks. 

The  Hayward  tract,  San  Mateo,  109.08  acres,  sold  by  Emma  Rose 
to  John  Barneson.  It  is  in  the  town  of  San  Mateo,  and  lies  south  of 
Ninth  Avenue,  east  of  the  county  road.  It  includes  what  is  now  known 
as  the  Peninsula  Hotel,  and  property  to  the  south  of  it. 

The  next  is  Silva  to  Borel,  140  acres,  which  was  purchased  for  the 
Spring  Valley  Water  Co. 

The  next  Claffey  to  Burgin,  451  acres,  San  Mateo  County,  was 
a  purchase  by  the  Water  Company. 

The  next  is  40  acres  south  of  and  adjoining  Dingee  Park — Dingee 
to  Mrs.  Pississ — and  west  of  the  county  road,  and  within  the  present      1200 
city  limits  of  Redwood  City.    I  handled  that  sale  myself. 

Besotti  to  Howell  was  a  purchase  for  Spring  Valley. 

Scalmanini  Ranch,  202  acres,  was  a  purchase  for  Spring  Valley. 

Borel  to  Janes,  24.33  acres,  San  Mateo  Park,  west  of  subdivision  3. 

The  Pomponio  Ranch  is  in  the  San  Gregorio  Country. 

The  next  is  2.35  acres  which  was  owned  by  Mr.  Pillsbury,  and  was 
cut  up  into  three  lots.  It  is  near  the  Burlingame  Club.  The  2.23  acres 
sold  to  Thomas  B.  Eastland  was  made  up  also  of  three  sales. 

The  981/2  acres  west  of,  and  adjoining  Dingee  Park,  sold  to  Geo. 
H.  Irving,  is  not  a  part  of  the  Johnson  Ranch,  but  is  a  part  of  the      1200^ 
Dingee  tract.    It  is  the  parcel  marked  W.  H.  Crocker,  110  acres,  im- 
mediately to  the  southwest  of  Dingee  Park.     It  is  quite  level,  and      1201 
slightly  sloping  to  the  west. 

F.  J.  Carolan  to  Wm.  G.  Irwin,  31  acres,  cross-ways,  San  Mateo 
County ;  that  is  an  improved  piece  of  property  a  short  distance  from 
the  Burlingame  Country  Club,  probably  not  more  than  half  a  mile. 

Questioned  by  Mr.  Olney. 

It  is  in  a  northwest  direction,  marked  ' '  Carolan ' '. 

CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  STEINHART. 

It  is  the  piece  marked  "Carolan"  in  Burlingame  Park. 

The  Gl/2  acres,  South  San  Francisco  Land  &  Improvement  Co., 
was  high  land.  It  is,  I  should  say,  northwest  of  the  property  marked 
"Western  Meat  Co."  1202 

San  Mateo  Park  is  a  subdivision  as  far  as  we  had  anything  to  do 
with  what  was  originally  known  as  the  Clark  Ranch,  and  included  sub- 
divisions 1,  2  and  3,  but  did  not  include  the  24  acres  which  lies  to  the 
west.  The  total  lot  sales  in  Baldwin  &  Howell 's  Re-subdivision  of  San 

331 


Baldwin 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

Mateo  Park  was  made  of  a  re-subdivision  of  a  portion  of  the  original. 
The  total  lot  sales  in  Hayward  Addition,  $159,130,  was  a  subdivision 
of  the  20  acres  that  were  sold  to  De  Sabla  and  others.  In  San  Mateo 
Park  the  lots  ranged  from  about  one-half  an  acre  to  an  acre.  The 
Hayward  Park  and  Hayward  Addition  lots  were  none  under  forty 
feet,  with  the  exception  of  a  few  lots  along  the  line  of  the  railroad. 

The  Central  Addition  were  50  foot  lots,  and  the  Dingee  Park  lots 
were  from  70  to  80  feet.  These  lots  fronting  on  the  street  did  not  in- 
clude the  area  of  the  street  in  making  the  sales. 

The  sales  in  Subdivision  No.  1,  Burlingame,  and  Subdivision  No. 
1,  El  Cerrito  Park,  were  in  tracts  of  about  an  acre  or  a  little  more. 
These  did  not  include  the  streets.  The  reason  the  total  number  of 
transactions  excludes  Subdivisions  1  of  Burlingame  and  El  Cerrito,  is 
that  I  do  not  know  exactly  how  many  transactions  were  in  each,  but 
I  do  know  the  area. 

The  Bostwick  sale  is  included  in  there,  and  I  think  you  will  find 
it  in  1909  as  737  acres  sold  for  $50,000. 

The  6,632.896  acres  only  includes  those  I  checked,  and  which  have 
been  sold  as  acres.  Some  of  that  acreage,  in  fact  a  large  portion  of  it, 
was  subdivided,  but  it  is  only  counted  in  the  original  sale.  It  does  not 
1204  include  the  marsh  land  sales,  but  does  include  the  Pomponio  Ranch. 

RE-DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  OLNEY. 

The  Pomponio  Ranch  is  down  near  San  Gregorio,  and  is  south- 
west of  anything  shown  on  "Plaintiff's  Exhibit  39".  In  1904,  when 
the  land  was  sold  to  De  Sabla,  I  do  not  think  that  that  particular  tract 
of  land  was  within  the  city  limits  of  San  Mateo. 


Orunsky  Witness:    C.  E.  GRUNSKY. 

1205  DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  OLNEY. 

I  am  a  civil  engineer,  and  have  been  since  1878.  I  received  my 
education  in  the  Polytechnic  Institute  at  Stuttgart,  Germany,  from 
where  I  graduated  in  1877.  I  then  took  up  the  practice  of  my  pro- 
fession in  California  by  entering  the  employ  of  the  State  Engineer  of 
California,  being  engaged  on  field  surveys  and  river  work.  Subse- 
quently I  became  Chief  Assistant  in  the  Engineering  Department,  and 
was  connected  with  that  department  until  1888.  My  work  had  to  do 
with  water  problems,  and  the  supply  of  water.  The  problems  that 
were  under  consideration  by  the  State  Engineer  related  to  irrigation, 
to  drainage,  to  the  mining  debris  problem,  and  to  flood  control  waters. 
It  was  in  reference  to  those  matters  that  I  was  active  in  the  depart- 


Grunsky 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

ment.  I  was  employed  in  the  State  Department  until  1888,  but  after 
that  entered  private  practice  at  Sacramento,  and  subsequently  at  San 
Francisco.  I  was  again  in  the  employ  of  the  State  in  1889  and  1890, 
as  a  member  of  the  Examining  Commission  on  Rivers  and  Harbors; 
the  function  of  that  Commission  being  to  report  upon  the  river  prob- 
lems connected  with  the  Sacramento  and  San  Joaquin  Rivers.  From 
1894  to  1895  I  was  Consulting  Engineer  to  the  Commissioner  of  Public  1206 
Works  of  California.  In  1892  and  1893  I  was  a  member  of  the  Sewage 
Commission  for  the  City  of  San  Francisco.  In  1899  I  was  engineer  in 
charge,  to  design  a  sewer  system  for  San  Francisco.  From  1900  to 
1904  I  was  City  Engineer  of  San  Francisco.  In  1904  I  was  appointed 
on  the  Isthmian  Canal  Commission,  and  was  on  that  commission  from 
1904  to  1905.  I  was  then  made  consulting  engineer  in  the  United 
States  Reclamation  Service,  and  was  adviser  to  the  Secretary  of  the 
Interior  in  connection  with  the  United  States  Reclamation  Service 
until  1907.  Since  1907,  I  have  been  in  private  practice.  My  princi- 
pal place  of  business  has  always  been  considered  San  Francisco,  and 
although  I  maintained  an  office  for  a  short  time  at  New  York,  I  have 
been  back  in  San  Francisco  since  1910.  I  have  been  following  that 
profession  since  that  time,  and  have  had  occasion  to  concern  myself 
with  the  reservoir  properties  of  the  Spring  Valley  "Water  Co.  My  first 
connection  with  these  properties  was  as  early  as  1886,  when  I  was 
called  upon  by  Mr.  Howard  to  act  as  an  expert  in  connection  with 
property  that  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Co.  desired  to  acquire  on  San 
Mateo  Creek.  This  property  was  located  just  south  of  the  creek,  and 
included  a  portion  of  the  dam  site  of  the  Crystal  Springs  Reservoir. 
Several  years  later  I  was  employed  in  valuing  the  Drinkhouse  Tract  1207 
in  the  Crystal  Springs  Reservoir  site.  As  City  Engineer  of  San  Fran- 
cisco, I  made  valuations  of  all  of  the  properties  of  the  Spring  Valley 
Water  Co.,  which  included  the  reservoir  sites  owned,  in  use,  and  held 
for  future  use.  I  have  kept  in  touch  with  the  problem  of  supplying 
San  Francisco  with  water,  and  as  City  Engineer,  I  was  required  to 
make  an  examination  of  all  available  sources  of  water,  and  I  have,  at 
various  times  since  then,  had  problems  in  connection  therewith  pre- 
sented, and  have  kept  in  touch  with  what  has  been  going  on  in  the 
matter  of  the  water  supply  for  San  Francisco.  In  connection  with 
my  valuation  of  the  properties,  I  valued  the  reservoir  sites,  and  I 
rendered  a  number  of  appraisals  of  the  property  which  were  used  in 
connection  with  rate  fixing.  I  am  familiar  with  the  reservoir  sites  of 
the  company,  both  on  the  peninsula  and  across  the  bay. 

I  have  made  a  study,  for  the  purpose  of  getting  at  the  market 
value,  on  December  31,  1913,  of  these  reservoir  sites,  and  I  have  put 
the  results  of  my  study  into  the  form  of  a  memorandum  relating  to 
the  problem  of  valuing  reservoir  sites,  with  my  conclusions  in  the 
matter.  1209 

333 


Grunsky 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.   CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

MEMORANDUM 

Relating  to  the  Value  of  the  Reservoir  Lands  of  the  Spring  Valley 
Water  Company. 

By  C.  E.  Grunsky, 
Aug.  7th,  1915. 

SUMMARY    OF    CONCLUSIONS    AND    GENERAL    STATEMENT    OF    THE 
PROBLEMS  : 

The  reservoir  properties  of  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Co.  consist 
of  the  Peninsula  system  of  reservoirs  embracing  the  Crystal  Springs, 
the  San  Andreas  and  the  Pilarcitos ;  of  Lake  Merced,  and  of  the  three 
reservoir  sites  in  the  watershed  of  Alameda  Creek,  the  Calaveras,  the 
San  Antonio  and  the  Arroyo  Valle. 

The  aggregate  area  of  the  reservoir  lands  in  the  Peninsula  system 
as  now  in  use,  not  including  Lake  Merced  is  about  2100  acres. 

An  additional  area  at  Crystal  Springs  Reservoir  of  about  640 
acres  will  be  in  this  reservoir  when  the  Crystal  Springs  dam  is  raised 
so  as  to  bring  the  ultimate  high  water  to  elevation  323  feet. 

Lake  Merced  should  be  permanently  controlled  for  water  storage 
and  emergency  use  up  to  elevation  30  on  the  gage  (elevation  15.7 
above  Crystal  Springs  datum).  At  this  elevation  its  water  surface 
area  is  about  336  acres. 

In  the  Calaveras  Reservoir  site  there  are  about  1930  acres  below 
contour  800. 

In  the  San  Antonio  Reservoir  site  there  are  about  656  acres  below 
elevation  450  feet  and  in  the  Arroyo  Valle  Reservoir  site  there  are 
about  630  acres  below  elevation  800  feet. 

The  problem  of  determining  the  market  value  of  reservoir  lands 
is  one  of  the  most  difficult  that  can  be  presented  to  the  engineer. 

No  definite  solution  of  the  problem  generally  applicable  has  yet 
been  found.  There  is  no  recognized  rule  for  determining  the  market 
1210  value  of  a  property  which  is  adapted  to  some  special  use,  such  as 
that  of  a  reservoir  which  makes  possible  the  development  of  a  water 
supply  or  which  is  necessary  to  hold  water  in  reserve,  for  use  in  the 
case  of  an  emergency,  such  as  may  arise  when  the  ordinary  supply 
is  temporarily  not  available. 

No  other  course  is  open  in  ascertaining  the  market  value  of  such 
reservoir  sites  than  to  determine  the  effect  upon  the  market  of  a 
knowledge  of  all  the  circumstances  bearing  upon  each  case.  This 
is  particularly  true  when  as  in  the  present  case  some  of  the  reservoir 
sites  whose  values  are  to  be  determined  are  the  only  ones  of  their 
character  which  are  available  for  the  particular  purpose  which  they 
fulfill. 

334 


Grunsky 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

If  the  necessity  to  use  the  property  is  an  immediate  one  it  may 
be  proper  to  determine  an  upper  limit  of  value  by  comparison  with 
the  next  most  available  source  of  supply;  but  this  limit  is  not  mar- 
ket value,  though  it  may  be  the  measure  of  what  the  party  desiring 
to  use  the  property  can  afford  to  pay.  There  should  always  be  a 
margin  in  favor  of  the  party  who  actually  uses  the  property  for  the 
purpose  to  which  it  is  specially  adapted. 

Ordinarily  when  the  value  of  land  is  to  be  determined  the  re- 
turn which  it  produces  in  rents  or  otherwise,  or  which  may  reason- 
ably be  anticipated,  and  the  sales  of  other  similarly  located  property 
adapted  to  similar  uses,  can  be  used  as  an  index  of  its  market  value. 
But  in  the  case  of  land  which  is  in  use  or  that  is  available  for  use 
as  a  storage  reservoir,  there  is  usually  no  such  standard  of  value 
than  can  be  applied.  It  would  be  an  unusual  circumstance  to  find 
sales  of  recent  date  of  similar  property  that  would  with  any  definite- 
ness  demonstrate  value.  Neither  is  the  rental  value  of  such  prop- 
erty, for  the  use  to  which  it  has  special  adaptability,  ascertainable 
even  when  already  in  use,  because  this  is  a  special  use  generally  more  1211 
or  less  monopolistic  in  character.  A  reservoir  may  be  a  material 
factor  in  making  possible  certain  net  earnings  resulting  from  the 
sale  of  water,  but  even  when  these  net  earnings  can  be  ascertained 
with  definiteness  there  will  be  much  uncertainty  in  the  matter  of 
determining  what  part  thereof  should  be  assumed  to  result  from  the 
use  of  the  reservoir  land. 

Nevertheless  there  are  many  circumstances  which  will  have  an 
effect  upon  the  market  value  of  reservoir  properties,  such  as  for 
example  the  time  when  the  use  of  the  site  will  be  a  necessity,  and  the 
time  when  the  water  supply  commanded  by  the  reservoir  will  be  in 
full  use ;  the  availability  of  other  equivalent  storage  sites  or  other 
equivalent  sources  of  water;  the  location  and  all  circumstances 
affecting  cost  of  developing  the  storage  and  of  effecting  a  delivery 
of  the  water,  particularly  when  the  reservoir  site  is  not  yet  in  use 
nor  immediately  requisite ;  also  the  extent  to  which  the  availability 
of  any  particular  site  has  been  demonstrated,  and  every  circumstance 
relating  to  valuations  that  have  been  made  by  competent  authority 
of  the  properties  under  consideration  for  rate  fixing  or  for  other 
purposes. 

In  the  case  of  the  reservoir  sites  now  owned  by  the  Spring 
Valley  Water  Company,  consideration  must  be  given, — 

To  the  adaptability  of  the  land  for  use  as  a  reservoir  site. 

To  the  necessity  of  such  use  and  the  continuance  thereof. 

To  the  fact  that  the  reservoir  lands  have  been  assembled  at  each 
site  in  one  holding. 

To  the  fact  that  in  the  case  of  the  Peninsula  reservoirs  the 
adaptability  of  the  several  reservoir  sites  for  use  as  reservoirs  has      1212 
been  demonstrated  by  actual  use. 

335 


Grunsky 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

To  the  cost  of  the  lands  and  the  increase  of  their  value  since  the 
time  of  purchase. 

To  the  valuations  placed  upon  the  reservoir  lands  by  San  Fran- 
cisco for  rate  fixing  purposes. 

To  the  valuation  as  judicially  determined  in  the  rate  case  of 
1903. 

To  the  fact  that  San  Francisco  has  declared  the  Peninsula  reser- 
voirs and  Lake  Merced  necessary  as  a  part  of  its  ultimate  water 
supply  system. 

To  the  fact  that  there  are  no  other  sites  for  water  storage  in 
large  amount,  near  at  hand,  that  could  be  used  in  place  of  the 
Peninsula  reservoirs. 

To  the  proximity  of  the  reservoir  sites  to  population  centers 
and  to  regions  in  which  population  is  increasing  rapidly. 

None  of  these  factors  taken  separately  leads  to  a  determina- 
tion of  value  which  can  be  accepted  without  question.  All  of  them 
should  be  brought  under  review.  It  is  the  consideration  of  all  these 
factors  which  would  influence  a  willing  seller  and  a  prudent  pur- 
chaser in  reaching  conclusions  relating  to  market  value;  and  it  is 
by  such  consideration  that  the  values  herein  set  forth  have  been 
determined. 

The  circumstances  which  affect  the  market  value  of  the  reser- 
voir lands  of  the  Spring  Valley  system  are  more  fully  discussed  in 
the  following  pages. 

GENERAL  CONSIDERATION  OF  THE  FACTORS  WHICH 
AFFECT  THE  MARKET  VALUE  OF  THE 

RESERVOIR  LANDS. 
COST  OF  THE  RESERVOIR  LANDS  : 

The  records  of  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Company  show  the 
amounts  which  were  paid  for  various  tracts  of  land  now  owned  as 
a  part  of  the  Peninsula  reservoir  system.  The  individual  land  pur- 
1213  chases  which  covered  lands  partly  within  one  or  the  other  of  the 
reservoir  sites  have  been  examined  with  a  view  to  obtain  some  idea 
of  the  amount  of  the  purchase  price  which  may  be  assumed  to  have 
been  applied  to  the  acquisition  of  the  reservoir  lands.  The  pre- 
liminary assumption  was  made  that  an  apportionment  of  total  cost 
on  the  basis  of  ten  times  the  per  acre  cost  for  reservoir  lands  as  for 
watershed  lands,  would  not  be  unreasonable,  although  it  seems  prob- 
able that  this  ratio  of  value  may  not  have  been  approximated  until 
after  the  lands  were  actually  in  use  for  reservoir  purposes.  On  this 
assumption  the  results  obtained  appear  sufficiently  consistent  to 
merit  consideration. 

In  the  Crystal  Springs  region  21  tracts  of  land,  whose  total 
acreage  aggregates  8445  acres  of  which  1338  acres  lie  below  eleva- 

336 


Grunsky 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

tion,  288  within  the  reservoir  site  as  shown  in  Table  1,  were  examined 
and  it  was  found  that  the  assumed  apportionment  of  cost  would 
indicate  about  $430  as  the  average  per  acre  cost  of  these  reservoir 
lands. 

The  prices  paid  for  the  reservoir  lands  of  individual  tracts  when 
determined  in  this  way  range  from  a  minimum  of  $77  per  acre  to 
a  maximum  of  $1700. 

Eight  of  the  tracts  show  cost  per  acre  in  excess  of  the  average 
and  13  show  cost  per  acre  less  than  the  average.  In  three  cases  the 
indicated  cost  per  acre  exceeded  $1000,  and  in  one  other  case  it  was 
about  $890  per  acre. 

The  highest  cost  per  acre  is  found  in  the  case  of  the  San  Mateo 
Water  Works  whose  properties  to  the  extent  of  980  acres  were 
acquired  for  $396,645.83.  This  purchase  is  somewhat  complicated 
by  the  fact  that  it  included  developed  water  rights,  although  these 
rights  are  apparently  fully  offset  by  the  obligation  to  furnish  an 
equivalent  amount  of  water  delivered  at  or  near  San  Mateo  free  of 
cost.  1214 

The  lands  relating  to  which  the  purchase  price  has  been  thus 
examined  were  acquired  in  part  about  1875  when  the  construction 
of  the  upper  Crystal  Springs  reservoir  had  been  decided  upon  and 
in  part  about  1887  just  before  work  on  the  main  Crystal  Springs 
dam  began. 

The  following  tracts  of  land  of  which  some  portion  lies  in 
Crystal  Springs  reservoir  are  not  included  among  the  selected  tracts 
as  listed  in  Table  1 : 

Tract  No.  38.  Original  owner,  Isaac  Friedlander.  Cost  $37,500. 
This  tract  of  95.14  acres  has  71.32  acres  in  the  reservoir 
and  23.82  acres  outside  of  same. 

Tract  No.  44.  Original  owner,  Sam'l  Theller  et  al.  Cost  $1867.50. 
This  tract  of  21.86  acres  has  12.40  acres  in  the  reservoir  and 
9.46  acres  outside  of  same. 

Tract  No.  110.    Original  owner,  E.  C.  Bowen.    Cost  $349.50. 
This  tract  of  3  acres  has  .90  acres  in  the  reservoir  and  2.10 
acres  in  the  watershed. 

Tract  No.  122.  Original  owner,  B.  McNamara.  Cost  $15,000. 
This  tract  of  118.58  acres  has  1.10  acres  in  the  reservoir  and 
117.48  acres  outside  of  same. 

If  these  tracts  had  been  included  the  results  noted  at  the 
bottom  of  the  table  would  have  shown  : 

Total  area  of  the  reservoir  lands :  1423.64  acres. 

Total  area  of  watershed  lands :  7259.56  acres. 

Total  cost:  $935,724.30. 

Mean  indicated  cost  of  reservoir  lands :  $435  per  acre. 

Mean  indicated  cost  of  watershed  lands:  $43.50  per  acre. 

337 


Grunsky 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

Although  these  additional  tracts  might  properly  have  been  in- 
1215  eluded  among  the  selected  tracts  enumerated  in  Table  1,  they  had 
been  excluded  in  the  original  study  for  various  reasons  such  as,  the 
small  proportion  of  reservoir  land  in  a  tract,  or  peculiar  location, 
or  uncertainty  relating  to  the  property  acquired,  and  the  small 
effect  of  their  inclusion  did  not  seem  to  warrant  a  reestimate  of  the 
results  which  are  at  best  only  approximations. 

Ten  tracts  of  land  of  which  each  includes  some  of  the  San  Andres 
Reservoir  land  as  shown  in  Table  2,  have  an  aggregate  area  of  1486 
acres  and  were  acquired  at  a  total  cost  of  $84,977.00.  The  area 
thereof  in  the  reservoir  is  440  acres  and  in  the  watershed  of  the 
reservoir  1046  acres.  On  the  same  ten  to  one  assumption  with  refer- 
ence to  the  cost  of  the  reservoir  lands  in  relation  to  the  cost  of  the 
lands  outside  of  the  reservoir  it  was  found  that  it  would  appear, 
though  this  is  by  no  means  conclusive,  that  these  reservoir  lands 
cost  on  an  average  $156.00  per  acre  and  the  watershed  lands  $15.60. 

Of  the  individual  tracts  7  are  indicated  to  have  cost  more  than 
these  average  prices  per  acre  and  3  less.  The  highest  indicated  cost 
is  for  a  tract  of  153.75  acres  of  which  10.40  acres  lie  within  the 
reservoir.  In  this  case  the  indicated  cost  per  acre  was  $438.00  for  the 
reservoir  land  and  $43.00  for  the  watershed  land.  All  of  the  7  tracts 
on  which  the  reservoir  lands  are  thus  estimated  to  have  cost  more 
than  the  average  cost  per  acre  show  probable  costs  in  excess  of 
$200.00  per  acre. 

The  lowest  indicated  cost  per  acre  of  the  reservoir  lands  of  the 
San  Andres  system  in  the  examined  list  of  tracts  is  $67.00  and 
applies  to  a  tract  of  531.95  acres  of  which  156.65  acres  lie  within 
the  reservoir. 

The  lands  in  the  San  Andres  reservoir  were  purchased  in  or 
about  the  year  1868. 

1216  The  following  tracts  of  land  of  which  some  portion  lies  in  San 

Andres  Reservoir  are  not  included  in  the  list  as  enumerated  in 
Table  2 : 

Tract  No.  43.  Original  owner,  Edward  Sweeney.  Cost, 
$11,487.50. 

This  tract  of  392.69  acres  has  1.00  acre  in  the  reservoir  and 
391.69  acres  outside  the  same. 

Tract  No.  218.  Original  owner,  R.  L.  Coleman.  Cost  unknown. 
This  tract  of  34.74  acres  has  11.90  acres  in  the  reservoir 
and  22.84  outside  the  same. 

If  the  Tract  No.  43,  which  was  omitted  from  the  selected  tracts 
owing  to  the  small  proportion  of  its  area  in  the  reservoir,  had  been 
included  in  the  determination  of  average  results  these  would  have 
been: 

338 


Grunsky 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

Total  area  of  reservoir  lands:  441.45  acres. 

Total  area  of  watershed  lands:  1,437.68  acres. 

Total  cost:  $96,464.50. 

Mean  indicated  cost  of  reservoir  lands :  $165  per  acre. 

Mean  indicated  cost  of  watershed  lands :  $16.50  per  acre. 

In  the  case  of  three  tracts  of  land  at  the  Pilarcitos  Reservoir 
with  an  aggregate  area  of  3,273  acres  of  which  96  are  reservoir  lands, 
as  shown  in  Table  3,  the  purchase  price  was  $19,996.50. 

On  the  same  assumption,  as  in  the  case  of  the  other  reservoirs, 
of  a  ten  to  one  ratio  of  the  cost  of  reservoir  lands  when  compared 
with  the  cost  of  watershed  lands,  it  was  found  that  this  ratio  in- 
dicated an  average  cost  per  acre  of  $48.50  for  the  reservoir  lands 
and  $4.85  for  the  watershed  lands  of  the  Pilarcitos  system. 
These  lands  were  purchased  in  or  about  the  year  1865. 
The  following  tracts  of  land   of  which  some  portion  lies  in      1217 
Pilarcitos  Reservoir  are  not  included  among  those  listed  in  Table  3 : 
Tract  No.   2.     Original  owners,  Pioche,  Mezes   and  Arguello. 
Cost,  $15,000. 

This  cost  included  rights  of  way  and  water  rights  which 
could  not  be  segregated  from  the  cost  of  the  land.  Of  this 
tract  of  40  acres  19.60  acres  lie  in  the  reservoir  and  20.40 
acres  outside  of  the  same. 

Tract  No.  5.  Original  owner,  R.  Roxby.  The  cost  of  this  tract 
is  included  with  other  lands  and  could  not  be  segregated. 
Of  this  tract  of  40  acres  16.40  lie  in  the  reservoir  and  23.60 
acres  are  outside  the  same. 

Tract  No.  27.  Originally  owned  by  Arguello,  Pioche,  Linden 
and  Mezes.  Cost  $2,057.60.  Of  this  tract  of  67.99  acres  .50 
acres  lie  in  the  reservoir  and  the  rest  6  separate  parcels  lie 
outside  the  same. 

Tracts  Nos.  2  and  5  were  not  included  in  the  list  given  in  Table 
3  owing  to  lack  of  information  relating  to  cost  and  No.  27 
was  not  included  owing  to  the  small  portion  thereof  in  the 
reservoir. 

Taking  the  reservoir  land  purchases  of  the  Peninsula  system  in 
their  entirety,  without  distinction  as  to  the  particular  reservoir  in 
which  they  lie,  it  is  found  that  the  34  tracts  of  land  which  are  listed 
in  tables  1  to  3,  have  a  combined  area  of  13,204  acres  of  which  1,874 
acres  are  in  the  reservoirs  as  at  present  in  use.  The  total  cost  of 
these  selected  tracts  of  land  was  $985,980.80.  (See  Table  4.) 

The  ten  to  one  ratio  of  unit  cost  would  indicate  $328  as  the 
average  cost  per  acre  of  the  reservoir  lands  and  $32.80  as  the  average 
cost  per  acre  of  the  watershed  lands. 

339 


Grunsky 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

APPKECIATION  OF  REAL  ESTATE  IN  THE  SAN  FRANCISCO 
BAY  REGION  AND  IN  CALIFORNIA. 

(Objected  to  by  Counsel  for  Defendant  as  calling  for  the  opinion 
of  the  witness  as  a  real  estate  expert,  but  allowed  to  go  in  subject 
to  that  weakness.) 

Since  these  reservoir  lands  were  bought  there  has  been  a  con- 

1218  tinuing  increase  in  the  value  of  real  estate.    This  appreciation  can 
be  determined  approximately  at  least  from  the  valuation  of  real 
estate  for  taxation  purposes. 

Confirmation  of  the  increasing  value  will  be  found  too  in  the 
fact  that  there  has  been  a  constantly  increasing  density  of  popula- 
tion in  the  Bay  region  (see  Table  5)  and  a  corresponding  increase  in 
the  demand  for  land  such  as  those  in  the  various  reservoir  sites  on 
the  Peninsula  which  if  not  used  for  reservoir  purposes  would  be 
available  for  country  homes. 

Some  information  is  presented  in  Table  6  relating  to  the  assessed 
valuation  of  real  estate  in  the  4  counties — San  Francisco,  San  Mateo, 
Santa  Clara  and  Alameda. 

Prior  to  1900  no  published  records  were  found  showing  sep- 
arately the  assessed  valuation  of  the  improvements.  The  table  there- 
fore shows  for  these  years  the  assessed  value  of  the  real  estate 
together  with  improvements. 

For  the  more  recent  years  the  assessed  value  of  the  land  only 
could  be  given. 

The  information  contained  in  Tables  5  and  6  is  the  basis  for  the 
percentages  noted  in  Tables  7  and  8  for  diagrams  on  sheets  Nos.  1 
to  5. 

After  these  diagrams  had  been  prepared  some  additional  infor- 
mation relating  to  the  assessed  valuation  of  real  estate  including 
improvements  in  San  Mateo  County  and  of  the  assessed  value  of 
real  estate,  without  inclusion  of  city  and  town  lots,  was  obtained 
and  is  presented  in  Table  17  and  on  Sheet  6,  supplementing  the  in- 
formation presented  in  Table  6  and  on  Sheet  1. 

During  the  40  years  following  1870  the  population  growth  of 

1219  the  State  of  California  has  been  at  the  average  rate  per  decade  of 
about  44%,  which  is  equivalent  to  3.7  per  cent  per  year.    The  aver- 
age rate  of  growth  of  San  Francisco  has  been  about  30  per  cent  per 
decade  during  the  same  4  decades  or  about  at  the  rate  of  2.7  per 
cent  per  year. 

The  population  growth  of  Alameda  County  has  been  so  largely 
due  to  the  growth  of  its  urban  district  and  Alameda  County  is  so 
remote  from  the  location  of  the  peninsula  reservoirs  that  it  may  be 
left  out  of  consideration  as  a  factor  influencing  the  increase  of  value 
of  real  estate  on  the  peninsula.  Nevertheless  some  figures  will  be 

340 


Grunsky 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

presented  to  show  in  this  county,  too,  the  close  relation  between  the 
increase  of  population  and  the  increase  in  the  value  of  real  estate. 

The  population  of  Santa  Clara  County  has  increased  from  26,246 
in  1870  to  83,539  in  1910  or  at  an  average  rate  of  34  per  cent  per 
decade.  This  is  at  the  average  rate  of  3  per  cent  per  year,  and  is  at 
about  the  same  rate  of  growth  as  maintained  during  the  last  decade, 
1900  to  1910,  for  which  records  are  available. 

The  population  of  San  Mateo  County  increased  from  3,214  in 
1860  to  26,584  in  1910.  It  increased  about  8.2  per  cent  per  year  in 
the  decade  1900  to  1910.  During  the  20  years,  1880  to  1900,  the 
growth  of  population  was  only  between  1.5  and  2  per  cent  per  year. 
The  average  annual  population  increase  in  the  county  since  1870 
has  been  between  3  and  4  per  cent. 

In  Table  7  is  presented  a  comparison  of  the  rate  of  increase  in 
population  and  in  the  assessed  value  of  real  estate  for  the  four 
counties,  San  Francisco,  San  Mateo,  Santa  Clara  and  Alameda. 

While  there  has  been  a  considerable  irregularity  in  the  rate  of 
growth  from  decade  to  decade  and  the  assessed  value  of  the  real 
estate  shows  fluctuations  which  are  undoubtedly  due  in  part  to  the 
vagaries  of  local  assessors,  the  table  is  nevertheless  a  good  index  of 
the  continually  advancing  value  of  land.  It  will  be  noted  too  that  1220 
generally,  particularly  in  the  case  of  periods  of  20  years  or  more,  the 
increase  in  the  assessed  value  of  real  estate  exceeds  somewhat  the 
increase  in  the  rate  of  population  growth. 

A  further  comparison  of  those  rates  of  increase  is  given  for  the 
decade  1900-1910  for  the  same  4  counties,  in  Table  8. 

The  figures  presented  show  for  each  of  the  counties  the  effect 
of  the  period  of  business  depression,  1893  to  1898,  which  fell  into 
the  decade  1890  to  1900,  upon  the  taxable  value  of  real  estate.  Not- 
withstanding the  resulting  check  which  the  increase  of  value  received 
at  that  time  the  average  rate  of  increase  for  Santa  Clara  County 
was  almost  5  per  cent  per  year  for  the  40  years,  1870  to  1910. 

In  San  Mateo  County,  too,  values  remained  practically  station- 
ary in  the  decade  1890  to  1900,  but  have  increased  rapidly  since. 
The  increase  indicated  by  the  tax  valuation  was  7.5  per  cent  per 
year  from  1900  to  1910  and  averaged  over  7  per  cent  for  the  40  years, 
1870  to  1910.  In  this  county,  too,  the  increase  of  land  value  seems 
to  have  kept  pace  with  the  growth  of  population.  The  value  of 
farm  lands  in  San  Mateo  County  is  given  in  the  U.  S.  Census  reports 
as  shown  in  Table  9.  This  table  shows  an  average  annual  increase 
in  the  value  of  farm  properties  of  about  4.5  per  cent  for  the  40  years, 
1870  to  1910,  and  7.5  per  cent  for  the  ten  years,  1900  to  1910,  the 
increase  being  about  the  same  for  the  recent  10-year  period  as  the 
increase  in  the  assessed  valuation  of  all  real  estate  in  the  county. 

Due  allowance  should  be  made  in  making  such  comparisons  as 
the  foregoing  to  the  uncertain  and  irregular  ratio  of  the  assessed 

341 


Grunsky 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

value  of  land  to  its  actual  market  value ;  and  also  to  the  fact  that 
some  of  the  figures  presented  relate  to  land  and  improvements  and 

1221  not  to  land  only.     It  is  believed  that  if  the  market  value  of  real 
estate  could  be  ascertained  with  the  same  degree  of  accuracy  as 
population  that  the  ratios  of  increase  would  show  a  more  dependable 
relation  to  each  other  than  that  indicated  by  the  results  presented  in 
Tables  7  and  8. 

In  San  Francisco,  as  shown  in  Tables  7  and  8,  the  assessors' 
valuations  for  the  ten  years,  1900  to  1910,  appear  to  indicate  a 
probable  average  increase  of  real  estate  values  in  the  city  of  about 
4  per  cent  per  year,  despite  the  fact  that  the  fire  of  1906  came  in 
as  a  disturbing  factor. 

It  is  interesting  to  note  that  while  the  population  of  San  Fran- 
cisco increased  from  149,473  in  1870  to  416,912  in  1910,  or  nearly 
three-fold,  the  assessed  value  of  real  estate  and  improvements  grew 
from  $75,145,700  to  $433,000,000,  or  about  six-fold.  Here  is  an 
additional  indication  that  in  San  Francisco  the  value  of  real  estate 
is  growing  faster  than  the  population,  a  double  rate  of  growth  ap- 
pearing possible.  On  the  assumption  that  the  relative  assessed  value 
of  land  and  of  the  improvements  thereon  has  remained  substantially 
the  same  these  figures  indicate  an  average  increase  of  real  estate 
value  in  San  Francisco  during  the  40  years  from  1870  to  1910  of 
about  4.5  per  cent  per  year. 

In  Tables  13  to  16  data  are  presented  relating  to  the  population 
of  California,  the  value  of  the  farming  lands  of  the  State  and  the 
assessed  valuation  of  real  estate  and  improvements.  The  figures  are 
taken  from  U.  S.  Census  reports. 

Considered  by  decades,  the  population  of  California  has  been 
increasing  at  average  rates,  since  1860,  ranging  from  2.1  to  4.9  per 
cent  per  year.  The  average  rate  of  growth  for  the  50  years  since 

1222  1860  covered  by  the  records  has  been  about  3.7  per  cent  per  year. 

During  the  same  50  years  the  aggregate  value  of  farms  in  the 
State,  including  improvements  on  the  farms,  has  increased  at  the 
average  annual  rate  of  6.9  per  cent  or  nearly  twice  as  fast  as  the 
population. 

During  one  decade,  only,  is  information  available  relating  to 
the  value  of  farming  land  without  the  inclusion  of  buildings.  This 
value,  according  to  the  census  figures,  increased  109  per  cent  in  the 
10  years,  1900  to  1910,  or  at  the  rate  of  7.7  per  cent  per  year.  In 
the  same  decade  the  population  increase  was  4.9  per  cent  per  year 
and  the  increase  of  the  value  of  farm  lands,  including  buildings, 
was  7.4  per  cent. 

These  statistics  confirm  the  fact  indicated  by  the  records  for  the 
South  San  Francisco  Bay  counties  that  the  value  of  real  estate 
grows  somewhat  faster  than  the  population. 

342 


Grunsky 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

The  information  contained  in  Tables  13  'to  15,  relating  to  this 
statistical  information  concerning  California,  is  shown  diagramati- 
cally  on  Sheet  5. 

The  increase  in  the  valuation  for  taxation  purposes  since  1870 
as  shown  by  Tables  7  and  8  averages : 

In  San  Francisco,  4.5  per  cent  per  year. 

In  San  Mateo  County,  7.3  per  cent  per  year. 

In  Santa  Clara  County,  4.8  per  cent  per  year. 

In  Alameda  County,  7.6  per  cent  per  year. 

The  increase  in  the  value  of  farm  properties  in  San  Mateo  County 
as  reported  by  the  U.  S.  Census  since  1870  averages  4.6  per  cent. 

As  shown  in  Tables  14  and  15  appended  hereto  the  value  of  farm 
properties  in  the  entire  state  has  been  increasing  since  1870  at  an 
average  annual  rate  of  5.9  per  cent  and  the  assessed  value  of  all 
real  property  in  the  state  at  6.6  per  cent. 

THE  PROBABLE  APPRECIATION  OF  THE  PENINSULA  RESERVOIR  LANDS  :          1223 

From  such  facts  as  presented  it  appears  that  the  mean  annual 
increase  in  the  market  value  of  real  estate  in  such  attractive  spots  as 
the  valleys  now  occupied  by  the  Peninsula  Reservoirs  for  long  time 
periods  has  probably  been  about  7  per  cent. 

The  preliminary  apportionment  of  the  cost  of  the  various  tracts 
of  land  on  the  basis  of  ten  times  as  much  per  acre  for  the  reservoir 
land  as  for  the  land  outside  of  the  reservoir  was  made  because  of 
general  knowledge  that  this  ratio  might  be  about  right.  It  was 
sought  to  find  a  ratio  which,  though  not  necessarily  resulting  in  a 
fair  apportionment  of  the  cost  in  the  case  of  each  tract,  would  never- 
theless indicate  a  reasonable  average  apportionment  on  the  basis  of 
values  as  they  obtained  after  the  reservoir  was  in  use. 

The  ten  to  one  ratio  was  tried  and  comparisons  were  made  with 
other  results  obtained  by  the  use  of  other  ratios,  such  as  5  to  1,  3  to 
1,  and  2  to  1. 

From  these  comparisons  the  conclusion  was  reached  that  the 
10  to  1  ratio,  better  than  any  lower  ratio,  would  give  a  reasonable 
apportionment  of  the  cost  to  reservoir  and  to  watershed  lands  for 
use  as  basic  values  in  estimating  what  the  cost  might  have  been  at 
a  later  day. 

The  appropriateness  of  some  such  ratio  as  10  to  1  is  further 
indicated  by  the  fact  that  this  is  the  ratio  which  appears  in  the 
findings  of  the  1903  rate  case.  1224 

If  the  approximate  acre  cost  of  the  reservoir  lands  as  determined 
by  use  of  the  10  to  1  ratio  be  used  as  a  starting  point  and  an  average 
annual  increase  of  value  of  real  estate  at  5  per  cent  instead  of  the 
probable  rate  of  7  per  cent  as  above  noted  for  the  Peninsula  Reservoir 
lands  be  made  the  basis  of  the  calculation,  land  values  in  the  reser- 

343 


Grunsky 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

voir  if  still  held  in  individual  tracts  would  be  indicated  for  1903 
and  1913  as  shown  in  Table  10. 

These  indicated  values  in  round  figures  are,  for  the  year  1903, 
Pilarcitos  Reservoir  lands,  $310  per  acre;  San  Andres,  $860  per 
acre,  and  Crystal  Springs,  $1200  per  acre.  For  the  year  1913,  Pilar- 
citos, $505  per  acre ;  San  Andres,  $1400  per  acre,  and  Crystal  Springs 
$1950  per  acre. 

The  indicated  average  value  per  acre  of  all  the  lands  as  in  use 
in  the  three  reservoirs  for  the  year  1903  was  $1070  per  acre  and  for 
the  year  1913  it  was  $1750  per  acre. 

COST  AS  AN  INDEX  OF  VALUE  HAS  LIMITATIONS  : 

A  study  of  this  kind,  while  it  is  interesting  and  instructive,  can 
not  be  accepted  as  conclusive.  Before  the  reservoirs  were  con- 
structed a  selection  of  sites  was  possible.  The  growing  need  for 
water  could  be  met  by  varying  the  order  in  which  the  reservoirs 
were  brought  into  use.  The  opportunity  to  develop  water  in  each 
of  the  three  sites  did  not  acquire  its  full  subsequent  value  so  long 
as  the  time  remained  uncertain  which  would  elapse  before  the  use 
of  each  site  was  a  necessity.  The  effect  of  this  circumstance  seems 
to  be  reflected  in  the  purchase  price  of  the  reservoir  lands,  the  first 
acquired  were  very  much  cheaper  than  those  acquired  at  a  later  date. 
-J225  If  the  cost  represents  or  is  fairly  proportional  to  the  market 

value  of  these  reservoir  lands  at  the  time  of  purchase  then  the  fig- 
ures as  presented  show  a  material  increase  in  the  value  thereof  during 
the  period  1865  to  1889,  in  which  this  reservoir  system  was  under 
development.  Moreover  the  cost  of  the  reservoir  land  acquired  first 
can  not  be  accepted  as  a  good  index  of  the  market  value  of  the  land 
of  the  completed  reservoir  system,  and  for  the  same  reason  the  mean 
indicated  average  value  per  acre  as  above  noted  for  the  entire  reser- 
voir system,  which  is  affected  by  the  early  purchases  made  for  the 
Pilarcitos  and  San  Andres  Reservoirs,  is  not  the  best  indication  of 
the  value  of  the-  reservoir  lands  at  the  time  of  the  completion  of  the 
entire  reservoir  system. 

If  the  reservoir  at  each  site  had  been  valued  separately  at  the 
time  that  the  last  of  the  reservoirs,  the  Crystal  Springs  reservoir  was 
being  constructed,  there  would,  without  doubt,  a  value  have  been 
found  for  the  lands  of  the  two  other  reservoirs,  already  in  use,  fully 
equal  per  acre  to  that  of  the  new  reservoir  which  was  not  yet  fully 
demonstrated  either  as  to  feasibility  or  as  to  its  yield. 

The  various  tracts  of  land  under  consideration  in  this  illustra- 
tive study  were  more  or  less  improved.  Information  is  lacking  which 
would  permit  an  estimate  of  the  value  of  these  improvements  at  the 
time  of  purchase.  But  whatever  may  have  been  the  added  cost  of 
acquiring  them  due  to  the  improvements  this  increment  of  cost  was  a 

344 


Grunsky 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

part  of  the  necessary  outlay  to  secure  the  land.  These  improvements 
were  of  no  value  as  a  part  of  the  reservoir.  Their  removal  involved 
additional  cost.  In  using  cost  as  an  indicator  of  value  it  is  immaterial 
whether  the  lands  were  improved  or  not,  because  the  resulting  aggre- 
gate cost  and  the  mean  unit  costs  determined  therefrom  indicate  a  1226 
minimum,  which  at  the  time  of  purchase  and  before  full  demonstra- 
tion of  successful  development,  the  purchaser  considered  these  prop- 
erties worth. 

Furthermore  the  average  cost  per  acre  as  indicated  by  the  pre- 
liminary assumption  results  from  a  consideration  of  individual  tracts 
each  acquired  separately.  If  this  indicated  cost  even  approximately 
represents  the  market  value  of  these  separate  tracts  at  the  time  of 
purchase  it  would  not  represent  the  full  value  of  the  property  when 
brought  under  one  ownership,  nor  would  it  include  the  increment  of 
value  that  results  from  the  demonstration  that  the  reservoir  will  hold 
water,  nor  yet  the  gradual  increase  of  value  due  to  the  bringing  of 
the  property  into  use  up  to  its  capacity  to  supply  water. 

For  confirmation  of  the  fact  that  both  Pilarcitos  and  San  An- 
dres Reservoir  lands  make  a  larger  development  of  water  per  acre 
of  water  surface  possible  than  the  Crystal  Springs  Reservoir  and  at 
higher  elevations,  reference  may  be  had  to  Table  11. 

Furthermore  the  acquisition  of  each  of  the  reservoir  tracts  was 
made  while  San  Francisco  was  being  supplied  with  water  from  sources 
that  did  not  include  the  particular  source  of  supply  commanded  by 
the  reservoir  site  about  to  be  acquired.  Consequently  the  market 
value  of  the  lands  at  the  time  of  acquisition  must  have  been  somewhat 
less  than  the  market  value  of  the  same  lands  would  have  been  after 
demonstration  of  the  feasibility  of  development  by  actual  construc- 
tion and  actual  utilization  to  the  limit  of  capacity  to  produce  water. 

It  is  not  surprising  in  view  of  these  circumstances  to  find  that 
the  unit  cost  of  the  reservoir  lands  first  acquired  was  less  than  that  of 
the  last  purchases  which  were  necessary  to  make  the  system  complete.  1227 

ADDITIONAL  CIRCUMSTANCES  AFFECTING  THE  MARKET  VALUE  OF  THE 
PENINSULA  RESERVOIR  LANDS  : 

The  necessity  of  maintaining  the  reservoirs  for  all  time  as  a  part 
of  the  water  works  system  of  San  Francisco  is  generally  recognized. 

The  reservoir  lands  in  connection  with  the  other  properties  that 
make  up  the  established  system  of  water  works  have  frequently  been 
valued  by  San  Francisco  as  a  basis  for  the  regulation  of  rates. 

The  value  of  these  lands  in  1903  for  rate  fixing  purposes  has  been 
judicially  determined. 

It  is  a  generally  accepted  fact  that  reservoir  lands,  whose  avail- 
ability for  water  supply  purposes  is  recognized  and  whose  utilization 
is  proximate  have  special  value  due  to  these  facts. 

345 


Grunsky 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

In  the  case  of  the  Peninsula  Reservoirs  the  fact  that  they  can  be 
depended  on  for  a  supply  of  about  18  million  gallons  per  day  has  been 
demonstrated  and  these  reservoirs  were  in  full  use  long  before  1903 
and  at  all  times  thereafter. 

Even  though  a  large  supply  of  water  be  brought  into  the  Bay 
region  from  Sierra  Nevada  or  other  sources,  the  reservoirs  will  con- 
tinue in  use  to  safeguard  uninterrupted  service.  This  function  will 
be  retained  by  them  even  though  the  water  supplied  by  the  distant 
source  is  fully  adequate  to  meet  the  requirements,  in  so  far  as  the 
amount  thereof  is  concerned,  because  they  are  the  only  available  ade- 
quate nearby  storage  sites,  and  because  of  the  fact  that  they  are  already 
in  use  as  reservoirs. 

For  a  number  of  years  beginning  in  1901  the  valuation  placed 
upon  these  reservoir  lands,  by  the  city  to  the  extent  that  they  were  in 
use,  was  $1250.  per  acre. 

Questioned  by  Mr.  Steinhart. 

I  was  City  Engineer  at  that  time,  and  that  was  my  valuation. 

1228  Lands  that  will  be  within  the  limits  of  the  Crystal  Springs  Reser- 
voir when  the  Crystal  Springs  dam  is  raised  to  its  full  height  but 
which  were  not  yet  subject  to  submersion  were  valued  by  the  city  at 
$625.  per  acre. 

The  effect  upon  the  market  of  the  fact  that  the  value  of  these 
lands  for  rate-fixing  purposes  applying  to  the  year  1903  was  deter- 
mined by  Judge  Farrington  at  $1000.  per  acre  for  lands  actually  in 
use  as  reservoirs  and  $100.  per  acre  for  lands  in  the  watersheds.  The 
Court  made  no  distinction  in  the  value  between  the  lands  whose  use 
as  reservoir  lands  was  prospective  and  those  which  are  simply  reser- 
voir lands. 

The  undeveloped  storage  at  the  Crystal  Springs  Reservoir  (about 
equivalent  to  present  capacity)  which  can  be  realized  by  raising  the 
dam,  about  40  ft.  is  of  minor  importance  in  so  far  as  increased  yield 
of  water  is  concerned.  Its  development  would  increase  the  yield  of 
this  source  by  only  a  small  amount. 

The  increase  of  storage  capacity  will,  however,  be  a  valuable 
feature  in  connection  with  any  large  water  supply  from  a  more  remote 
source  such  as  Calaveras  Creek  or  the  Sierra  Nevada  Mountains.  But 
the  development  of  this  storage,  even  for  this  purpose,  cannot  be  re- 
garded as  an  immediate  essential  requirement.  In  view  of  this  fact 
the  lands  that  are  necessary  to  make  the  added  storage  possible  do  not 
have  the  same  value  as  the  lands  already  in  actual  use  as  reservoirs. 

The  raising  of  the  Crystal  Springs  dam  to  the  contemplated  height 
of  328  feet  with  a  water  surface  in  the  reservoir  when  full  at  323  feet, 
will  increase  the  storage  capacity  from  about  22,000  million  gallons  to 

1229  about  43,000  million  gallons.    The  additional  storage  capacity  will  be 
at  a  higher  elevation  than  that  of  the  present  reservoir.    A  conduit 

346 


Grunsky 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

adapted  to  the  increased  head  and  to  all  conditions  of  service  will  have 
a  smaller  diameter  for  the  same  required  delivery  than  would  a  con- 
duit planned  for  the  reservoir  as  now  in  use. 

Taking  all  of  the  circumstances  into  account  which  affect  the 
market  value  of  these  reservoir  lands  and  giving  consideration  to  the 
fact  that  the  Peninsula  Reservoirs  will  continue  in  use  even  though 
the  development  of  water  from  some  other  source  should  for  a  time 
make  it  unnecessary  to  draw  upon  them  to  their  full  yielding  capacity, 
I  consider  the  market  value  at  the  end  of  the  year  1913,  of  the  lands 
actually  in  use  as  reservoir  lands,  to  have  been  at  least  $1400.  per  acre 
and  the  market  value  of  the  higher  lying  lands  at  the  Crystal  Springs 
Reservoir  which  will  ultimately  be  in  the  reservoir,  to  have  been  at 
least  $700.  per  acre. 

LAKE  MERCED. 

Lake  Merced  is  a  source  of  water  which  has  been  in  use  for  many 
years  to  supplement  the  other  sources  at  the  command  of  the  Water 
Company.  The  lake  is  still  in  use.  Its  water,  in  so  far  as  quality  is 
concerned,  is  less  desirable  than  water  from  other  sources.  The  lake 
is  but  slightly  above  sea-level,  consequently  its  water  must  be  pumped 
to  make  it  available  for  distribution.  The  lake,  however,  is  located 
within  the  limits  of  San  Francisco.  The  delivery  of  its  water  is 
effected  through  a  short  pipe  line.  Its  water,  when  in  use,  is  filtered 
to  fit  it  for  human  consumption. 

Whenever  water  is  brought  to  San  Francisco  in  large  quantity 
from  some  new  source,  such  as  the  Calaveras  Reservoir  or  the  Sierra 
Nevada  Mountains,  the  use  of  Lake  Merced  as  a  source  of  continuous  1230 
yield  will  be  abandoned.  The  lake  will  thereafter  be  drawn  upon  only 
in  the  case  of  an  emergency.  When  the  emergency  arises,  as  it  did 
in  1906  when  the  various  main  pipe  lines,  leading  into  San  Francisco 
from  the  Peninsula  Reservoirs,  were  all  thrown  out  of  commission,  the 
lake  is  available  for  a  much  larger  amount  of  water  than  its  ordin- 
ary yielding  capacity.  Under  such  conditions  the  city  may  become 
dependent  almost  entirely  upon  this  lake  for  water  for  domestic  use, 
and  a  large  part  of  the  city  not  yet  commanded  by  the  high  pressure 
fire  protection  system  will  get  its  protection  against  fire  mainly  from 
this  source. 

At  the  stage  at  which  the  lake  will  probably  be  permanently  main- 
tained when  no  longer  used  as  an  ordinary  source  of  supply  it  con- 
tains about  2659  million  gallons  of  water.  This  is  about  a  60  days' 
supply  at  the  present  rate  of  consumption  without  regard  to  the  ac- 
cession of  water  from  springs  that  would  result  if  the  lake's  water 
surface  were  materially  lowered  by  pumping. 

After  the  lake  ceases  to  be  of  use  as  an  ordinary  source  of  supply 
and  its  water  is  to  be  furnished  for  domestic  use  at  infrequent  inter- 

347 


Grunsky 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

vals  upon  occasions  which  are  not  to  be  expected  oftener  than  once  or 
twice  in  a  century  and  which  may  never  arise  at  all,  the  need  of  the 
same  care  as  at  present  in  preventing  a  possible  contamination  of  the 
lake  water  will  disappear.  There  will  thereafter  be  no  necessity  of 
restricting  the  use  of  watershed  lands.  The  quality  of  the  supply,  even 
though  there  should  be  a  recognized  possibility  of  contamination,  will 
be  amply  safeguarded  for  the  brief  period  of  its  use  in  an  emergency 
by  nitration  and  such  treatment  as  may  be  found  necessary  to  sterilize 
the  water. 

It  follows  that  the  control  of  the  Lake  Merced  watershed  by  own- 
1231  ership,  will  no  longer  be  necessary  after  the  lake  ceases  to  be  in  use 
as  an  ordinary  source  of  supply.  It  has  been  difficult  heretofore  to 
separate  the  value  of  the  lake  from  the  value  of  the  lands  of  its  water- 
shed. The  problem  will  be  presented  in  a  new  aspect  when  these  lands 
are  released  for  subdivision  and  the  lake,  as  a  feature  of  the  water 
works,  is  to  be  considered  apart  from  the  surrounding  lands. 

When  this  will  occur  is  not  definitely  known.  It  must  be  in  the 
near  future  because  the  developed  supply  of  water,  available  for  use 
in  San  Francisco,  is  at  present  inadequate  and  the  bringing  of  an 
added  supply  from  some  source  in  an  amount  which  would  make 
further  draft  upon  Lake  Merced  unnecessary  can  not  be  deferred  many 
years. 

Lake  Merced  as  a  source  of  water  and  as  a  container  of  water  is 
compared  with  the  Peninsula  Reservoirs  in  Table  12. 

When  it  is  considered  that  the  nearness  of  this  supply  and  its 
dependability  offset  the  need  of  pumping  and  filtering  the  water,  then 
the  yield  per  acre  of  water  surface  alone,  as  shown  in  this  table  would 
indicate  a  value  per  acre  not  greatly  at  variance  with  that  of  the 
Peninsula  Reservoir  sites.  But  the  prospective  abandonment  of  the 
use  of  the  water  has  a  depressing  offset  upon  market  value. 

The  maintenance  of  Lake  Merced  as  a  water  body  adds  attrac- 
tiveness to  the  surrounding  lands.  The  lake,  if  permanently  main- 
tained together  with  its  marginal  lands,  will  become  available  as  a 
place  of  recreation  without  losing  value  as  an  emergency  source  of 
water. 

Under  consideration  of  these  and  other  circumstances  affecting 
the  value  of  the  lake  I  consider  its  market  value  at  the  end  of  the  year 
1913  to  have  been  at  least  $1000.  per  acre  of  water  surface  at  gage 
reading  30.  This  does  not  include  marginal  lands  whose  market 
value  depends  upon  uses  other  than  water  production. 

The  lake  as  a  part  of  the  entire  Lake  Merced  tract  owned  by  the 
Water  Company  may  have  a  value  in  excess  of  $1000.  per  acre  but  I 
have  not  given  consideration  to  land  values  outside  of  the  lake  which 
would  result  from  its  assured  continuance  as  a  lake. 


348 


Grunsky 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

THE  CALAVERAS  RESERVOIR  SITE. 

At  the  close  of  1913  a  Calaveras  Reservoir  did  not  yet  exist.  The 
reservoir  site  was  not  yet  in  use  as  a  reservoir.  Nevertheless  the  lands 
of  the  site  at  that  time  had  value  due  in  part  to  the  fact  that  their 
ownership  would,  at  a  conveniently  located  site,  make  possible  the 
development  of  a  large  amount  of  water. 

It  would  be  possible  to  estimate  this  value  with  some  degree  of 
precision  if  it  could  be  assumed  to  have  been  then  known  when  the 
utilization  of  the  site  would  become  requisite,  and  when  in  the  still 
more  remote  future  the  reservoir  would  be  in  use  to  its  capacity,  in 
supplying  water. 

Notwithstanding  the  fact  that  the  availability  of  the  site  and  the 
possibility  of  erecting  a  high  dam  at  the  Calaveras  site  has  long  been 
recognized  and  was  generally  accepted  as  sufficiently  demonstrated  in 
1913,  there  could  be  no  certainty  at  that  time  relating  to  when  the 
construction  of  a  dam  would  commence,  nor  yet  with  reference  to  the 
time  when  there  would  be  a  demand  for  all  the  water  which  the  Cal- 
averas Creek,  when  regulated  by  the  reservoir  can  supply. 

(Witness  here  stated  that  he  desired  to  make  a  correction  in  this 
paragraph,  because  the  construction  of  a  dam  in  the  sense  of  prepara- 
tion and  the  expenditure  of  about  $300,000  had  commenced  at  the  end 
of  1913.) 

At  that  time  no  one  could  foretell  whether  the  early  development  1233 
of  a  water  supply  from  the  Sierra  Nevada  Mountains,  for  use  in  the 
Bay  region,  would  not  postpone  the  requirement  of  a  development  on 
the  Calaveras  to  an  indefinite  future.  It  was  known  then,  as  it  is 
today,  that  both  the  East  Bay  region  as  well  as  San  Francisco  are  in 
need  of  more  water  than  is  now  available  for  delivery.  This  need  of 
an  increased  supply  was  already  pressing  in  1913.  But  although  this 
was  the  situation  there  could  have  been  no  assurance  given  to  an  out- 
side owner  if  there  had  been  such  an  owner  of  the  Calaveras  Reser- 
voir site,  that  within  two  years  the  construction  of  the  Calaveras  dam 
would  be  well  advanced  and  the  reservoir  would  be  ready  for  partial 
use.  In  fixing  upon  a  market  value  at  that  time,  consideration  would 
have  had  to  be  given  to  the  fact  that  by  an  early  development  of  other 
sources  of  supply  such  as  those  of  San  Antonio  and  Del  Valle  Creeks, 
the  development  of  the  Calaveras  supply  could  be  deferred  for  a  num- 
ber of  years.  Conditions  have  changed  since  1913,  the  construction 
of  a  dam  being  well  advanced.  The  value  at  that  date  is  not  the  pres- 
ent day  value. 

Under  the  circumstances,  as  explained,  the  Calaveras  Reservoir 
land  can  not  have  had  value  greatly  in  excess  of  the  value  of  similar 
lands  not  available  for  reservoir  purposes.  But  there  nevertheless  was 
some  excess  value  due  to  the  location  and  elevation  of  the  reservoir 

349 


Grunsky 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

site  and  the  opportunity  which  it  affords  to  develop  a  large  amount  of 
water  for  which  there  will  some  day  be  a  market. 

The  water  surface  of  the  completed  reservoir  will  be  at  elevation 
790  feet.  The  top  of  the  dam  will  be  at  elevation  800  feet.  The  res- 
ervoir will  have  a  capacity  of  46,315  million  gallons.  It  will  store 

1234  24  million  gallons  of  water  per  acre  of  reservoir  area.    It  will  make 
possible  the  development  and  utilization  of  some  37,000,000  gallons 
per  day  of  water,  of  which  only  a  small  portion  is  at  present  under 
control  and  available  at  Sunol. 

Per  acre  of  reservoir  area  the  water  production  will  be  about 
19,200  gallons  per  day. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  in  the  light  of  these  facts,  particularly 
when  consideration  is  given  to  the  constant  increase  of  population  in 
the  Bay  region  and  to  the  growing  demand  for  water,  that  the  lands 
of  the  Calaveras  Reservoir  site  had  more  than  farming  land  value  at 
the  close  of  the  year  1913. 

As  a  water  producing  property  the  Calaveras  Reservoir  is  ex- 
pected to  take  higher  rank  than  the  Peninsula  Reservoirs.  Its  full 
development  will  make  possible  the  production  of  twice  as  much  water 
per  acre  of  land  in  the  reservoir  as  is  produced  per  acre  of  reservoir 
land  on  the  Peninsula. 

Its  storage  capacity  per  acre  is  also  greater  about  24  million  gal- 
lons to  be  compared  with  14.3  million  gallons  as  the  average  for  the 
Pilarcitos,  San  Andres  and  Crystal  Springs  Reservoirs.  But  the  res- 
ervoir was  not  a  constructed  reservoir  at  the  end  of  1913  and  there 
was  at  that  time  uncertainty,  not  alone  with  reference  to  the  time  when 
its  use  would  be  a  necessity,  but  also  with  reference  to  the  more  remote 
date  at  which  it  will  be  in  full  use. 

In  view  of  these  circumstances  I  consider  the  market  value  of 
this  reservoir  site  at  the  end  of  the  year  1913  to  have  been  at  least 
$200.  per  acre. 

SAN  ANTONIO  AND  ARROYO  VALLE  RESERVOIR  SITES  : 

Both  the  San  Antonio  and  the  Arroyo  Valle  Reservoir  sites  are 

1235  valuable  features  in  the  ultimate  full  development  of  the  water  of  the 
Alameda  Creek  region. 

Topographically  both  sites  are  favorable  for  the  storage  and  the 
development  of  water.  At  neither  site  has  any  work  of  construction 
been  done  but  the  dam  sites  have  been  explored  with  satisfactory 
results. 

Some  facts  relating  to  the  water  that  can  be  stored  in  these  con- 
templated reservoirs  and  their  prospective  yield  is  presented  in 
Table  12. 

It  is  uncertain  when  either  of  these  reservoirs  will  be  requisite  as 
a  feature  of  any  water  supply  whether  for  San  Francisco  or  any 
other  community.  It  is  uncertain  too  which  reservoir  will  be  required 

350 


Grunsky 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

first  and  to  what  extent  the  completion  of  the  Calaveras  Reservoir,  or 
the  completion  of  either  of  these  reservoirs  will  delay  the  construction 
of  the  other.  The  use  of  the  San  Antonio  Reservoir  site  is  a  feature 
of  the  John  R.  Freeman  plan  for  developing  a  water  supply  from 
Tuolumne  River.  Nevertheless  it  is  recognized  as  possible  that  when 
water  is  brought  into  the  Bay  region  from  some  Sierra  Nevada  source, 
the  utilization  of  one  or  both  of  these  sites  for  water  storage  may  be 
long  deferred. 

Notwithstanding  this  fact  the  lands  in  each  of  these  sites  have 
some  value  due  to  the  adaptability  for  reservoir  use  in  excess  of  their 
value  for  farming  and  grazing  purposes.  This  excess  at  the  end  of  the 
year  1913  I  consider  to  have  been  at  least  25%. 

SUMMARY. 

In  reaching  conclusions  as  herein  presented  relating  to  the  market 
value  of  reservoir  properties  the  circumstances  have  been  weighed 
which  would  effect  an  intelligent  public  or  a  prudent  purchaser  in  de- 
termining market  value.  The  seller  of  such  properties,  as  well  as  the 
purchaser,  would  give  consideration  to  every  known  fact  relating  1236 
thereto.  Both  would  be  influenced  more  or  less  in  their  conclusions 
by  the  various  circumstances  to  which  I  have  called  attention  and 
both  would  give  consideration  to  the  effect  of  all  these  circumstances 
upon  the  minds  of  an  intelligent  public,  because  it  is  this  effect  and 
the  resulting  attitude  of  the  public  which  is  the  main  factor  that  in- 
fluences market  value. 

On  the  basis  of  the  areas  as  herein  noted  and  the  unit  values 
found,  the  valuation  of  the  reservoir  properties  would  appear  as 
follows : 

Peninsula  Reservoir  System: 

Crystal  Springs 1493  acres 

San  Andres 498     " 

Pilarcitos 109     " 

2100  acres  at  $1400.  per  ac.  =  $2,940,000. 
Crystal  Springs  Reservoir  land  not  yet  in  use 

640  acres  at   $700.  perac.  =      448,000. 


Total  Peninsula  Reservoirs $3,388,000. 

Lake  Merced: 

336  acres  of  water  surface  at  $1000 $   336,000. 

Calaveras  Reservoir  Site : 

1930  acres  at  $200 $    386,000. 

San  Antonio  and  Arroyo  Valle  Reservoir  sites  at 

125  per  cent  of  value  for  ordinary  uses. 
Tables  1  to  17  and  diagrams  1  to  6  herein  referred  to  are  appended. 

351 


Grunsky 


SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 


1238 


•*s 


!:l 


1. 


fid 

s-  I^'W?ll2jSfe8jeHfiS»l  -so0^^^^ 

~ 


O     00000 
1C      O  O  1C  -^  QO  • 


o  co  i-  o  i>  <o 

i-li-llOr-l          1C 


§0000000000000 
o  o  o  o  o  o  o  o  p  p  p  p  p 
ic"    ooio^ooGso'c<ioico'oot-i-- 

r-Tr-T  r-T 


o    o      o 

o    o       o 


;o  o 
.eoeo 


I  p  p    I 

;  co  co  I 

05  r-l 

l»-tW 


icooocooiooooo 

IOOOOOOOCOOOO5O 


oo 

OOO 


s 


~  ~ 

kC^m-<tit-l  Tj<      t-^N 

COi-lrHCO  COCJ 


0  0  0  0  0  0  0  t-  0  0  10  0  0  0  0  0  0      0  0 

r-HinOsmt^t-TttNT-HOJT^OSOlOr-lt^CS      *O  t- 

^g8;jg'^»      «      rh 


ICO'^tlCO 
<M  O  rH 


£a! 


352 


Grunsky 


SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 


-8-8*1 


oooooooooo 


§§§§§§§§§§ 

O5  od  t-^  wi  t~  iri  to  i-i  06  co 

(M-^        rH<M<MCQ(MCO 


OOOOOOOOO' 

t~-*«oeocoi>-oqoqiqi 
10  o  «c>  06  -*'  as  co'  co"  oo  i 

COi-HlOt^r-liHtNr-INI 


1 


1239 


353 


Grunsky 


1240 


SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 


*1 


per  A 
Water 


i 


WOQ- 


111 


354 


SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 


•SI 


000 
CO  O  10 


Grunsky 
1241 


355 


SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 


1242 


se 

31 
Ss 
21 


a 

«        J 


|       | 

20       1 


c  oq  q  t~  o 

H  os  os'  oo  os° 

^  W  •*  CO  00 


i  -  i  -  r.r  —r  i  -  — 

(M  CO  t~  50  OS  CO 
OS^  O^  OS^  OO^  T^  |H^ 

oo  *<jr(N  eo"o  to 
cq  coos  co  "* 


Tt<  t-  Tj*  oo  oo 


•^t  \n  oi  t~  •*  w 

i-H  CO  «>  00  O5  00 
Cvl  «O  «O  O  O  iO 

"'"""~I 


rH  W3  00  «0  «0 
CO  CO  b-'  •*  i-i 
«D  IO  W  iH  OQ 


i  co  os  t-  <M  IM 

>  t-  10  OS  00  rH 

>"  oT  co^  oo"  <M"~  ccT 


00  00  00  OS  OS 


SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 


Grunsky 


1243 


g     H    1 

IH       p        g 


Q    WJ 

8  5 


iji 

ft     *>  T3 

£  «  PS 


«  2 


=>0000  ^.0000  00000  O 

»  C<1  iH  Tjn  eq  ,_,    fl    10         o        TH         <M  O  t-  5O  O  t~  (M 

M  50  CO  50  O  03  O    °°         O         10         »0  05NOJC050  O 

si  o  o  oi  to"  S       t^~     o"     50"     r-T  9 o'oo'i-T  so" 

^  50  t-  PR  •*          10          »0          50  O  (M  TH  rH  CO  if 


•*"~CO~rH*'(M*'l>r      _   '3    cT        if"        l>^        oT        cT 


OOOOO       jj          OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 
OlOOOO        "S          OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOq 

^'^l,al,'o-.Tjl>    W  >»  P^0  P^P^ct,c^ci,o^ira^'r^o^clP^o^o<l, 

"io  s 


53  -50350  CO 
r-^iH^O^CO^IO^ 


i-m' 


i5OCOO5THOSlOCOlO»Ot^OS 


oo"  co  oo  oo 


oooooooooooooooo 

§000000000000000 
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO^ 
IH  «T«C  «  OQ'^t-  W  eo"TjH  0~00"U5  O?  (M  «0 


IN^O^O^IO^IO  rH^O^Cq^U^C^OO  OJ 
OOOOOOOOOOOOWTtHOlXiCMOlOrHIM 

:    :    :    :    : 


TH(NCOTt<l050t-000>OrHCqcO'<fl050 
OOOOOOOOOTHTHTHTHTHTHTH 

OiH<MCOif>C5Ot^OOOSOiH<NCOif»O 


00  00  00  00  <3» 


357 


Grunsky 


SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 


1244 


! 


. 
o  oin   oo 


10  oo  ^  co  « 

O  •*  Tjf  CO  «O 


09  a  N  eo  co 
oo  IM  CON  eo 


•^  co 


o  ie 


«OIM  50  r-KN 
rH  00  CO'  N  •*' 


00  00  00  O> 


Grunsky 


SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 


Table  8. 

COMPAEISON  OF  THE  GEOWTH  OF  POPULATION  WITH  THE  INCREASE 
OF  THE  ASSESSMENT  ROLL,  1900  TO  1910. 

South  San  Francisco  Bay  Region. 
Average  increase  per  year. 


1245 


County 

Population 
Per  Cent 

Taxable  Value 
of  Real  Estate 
Per  Cent 

San 
San 
Sant 
Alan 

Francisco*  

2.0 

4.2 
7.5 
3.3 

8.8 

Mateo     .. 

8.2 

a  Clara 

33 

icda  

6.6 

*  The  fire  in  San  Francisco  in  1906  falling  within  the  period  covered  by  this 
table  has  no  doubt  had  a  masterful  effect  upon  both  the  rate  of  population  growth 
and  the  increase  of  real  estate  values. 


Table  9. 

VALUE  OF  FARM  LAND  AND  BUILDINGS  IN  SAN  MATEO  COUNTY. 

(U.  S.  Census) 


1246 


Year 

Value 

Increase  in 
Per  Cent 
Since  Last 
Census 

Average 
Annual  In- 
crease Per 
Cent   since 
last  Census 

1860 

$  1  907  687 

1870 

3,397,701 

78 

6  0 

1880  

7  916  196 

133 

8  8 

1890 

11  509  540 

45 

0    0 

1900 

9  534  530 

17 

1  R 

1910  

...  19.454.985 

105 

7K    . 

359 


SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 


1247 


Table  10. 


INDICATION  OF  THE  VALUE  OF  EESEEVOIE  LANDS  IN  1903  AND  1913. 

On  the  assumption  that  original  cost  represents  value  at  the  time  of  purchase  and 
on  the  further  assumption  that  the  per  acre  cost  of  reservoir  lands  in 
each  tract  acquired  was  ten  times  the  per  acre  cost  of 
lands  outside  of  the  reservoir. 

The  increase  of  value  has  been  estimated  at  5  per  cent  per  year. 


Eeservoir 

Approx. 
Date  of 
Purchase 

Estimated 
Cost 
Per   Acre 

Indicated 
Value 
1903 

Indicated 
Value 
1913 

Crystal    Springs  
San  Andres 

..     1882 
1868 

$430.00 
156.00 

$1,200.00 
860.00 

$1,950.00 
1,400.00 

Pilarcitos 

1865 

4850 

310.00 

505  00 

Weighted  average.. 

$1,070.00 

$1,750.00 

The  results  in  this  table  are  illustrative  and  apply  to  the  several  tracts  of 
land  considered  individually  and  not  as  assembled  into  one  holding  ready  for  use 
as  a  reservoir. 


1248 


Table  11. 

PENINSULA  EESEEVOIES. 
Storage  Capacity  and  Water  Yield. 


Crystal 
Springs 

San 
Andres 

Pilarcitos 

Peninsula 
System 

Area,  Acres 

1,493 

498 

109 

2  100 

Storage  Capacity  M.  G  
Yield  M.  G.  D  

...  22,360 
9 

6,230 

1,083 

29,673 
18 

Storage  Cap.  per  Ac.  M.  G.  . 
Yield  per  Ac.  Gals,  per  day. 
Elevation,  Top  of  Dam  
Elevation,  Water  Surface  

14.98 
...     6,030 

...        288.85 
288 

12.50 
12,000 
449.5 
446.25 

9.94 
27,500 
698.75 
696.75 

14.13 

8,570 

420 

The  elevations  noted  in  this  table  are  above  Crystal  Springs  datum.    Subtract 
4.98  feet  to  reduce  to  elevations  above  City  Base. 


SPRING  VALLEY  WATEE  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 


Grunsky 


Table  12. 

COMPARISON  OF  AREAS  AND  CAPACITIES  OF  RESERVOIRS,  AND 
RESERVOIR  SITES. 


1249 


Peninsula 
System 

Lake 
Merced 

Calaveras 
Reservoir 

San  Antonio 
Reservoir 

Del  Valle 
Reservoir 

Area,    Acres  
Storage  Cap.  M.  G  
Yield  M.  G.  D  

2,100 
29,673 
18 

336 
2,659 

1,930 
46,315 
37 

656 
11,674 
*8.9 

630 
13,800 
*15 

Storage  Cap.  per  Ac. 
M    G 

1413 

79 

240 

17  8 

219 

Yield  per  Ac.  Gals, 
per  Day  

Elevation  Top  of  Dam 

8,570 
f420 

8,930 
+20.7 

19,200 
800 

13,600 
450 

23,800 
800 

*Estimates  by  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Co. 

tAverage. 

+ Elevation  of  water  surface  above  Crystal  Springs  datum,  at  30  feet  on 
the  gage. 

Note — The  capacity  of  Lake  Merced  is  generally  given  at  2500  M.  G.  This 
would  require  the  lake's  surface  to  be  maintained  at  gage  reading  29  feet  (Elev. 
19.7  ft.).  The  ordinary  elevation  of  the  water  surface  is  20  to  22  feet  on  the 
gage.  When  the  draft  upon  the  lake  ceases  the  water  can  probably  be  maintained 
at  gage  reading  30  feet  or  20.7  feet  (Crystal  Springs  datum). 

(To  reduce  elevations  above  Crytal  Springs  to  elevations  above  City  Base  sub- 
stract  4.98  feet.) 


Table  13. 

California. 

POPULATION. 

From  United  States  Census. 


1250 


Year 


Population 


Increase 

Per  Cent       — Increase  in  Percentage  Per  Year — 

Since  Last       Since  Since         Since          Since 

Census     Last  Census     1860  1870  1880 


1850  

92,597 

1860  

1870 

379,994 
560,247 

310.4 

47.4 

4.0 

40 

1880  

864,694 

54.3 

4.4 

4.2 

4.4 

1890  
1900 

1,213,398 
1,485,053 

40.3 
22.4 

3.4 
2.1 

3.9 
3.5 

3.9 
33 

3.4 
28 

1910  

...  2,377,549 

60.1 

4.9 

3.7 

3.7 

3.5 

361 


Grunsky 


1251 


SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 


Table  14. 
California. 

CASH  VALUE  OF  FAEMS  (INCL.  BUILDINGS). 
From  United  States  Census. 


Year 

Value  of  Farms 
Incl.  Buildings 

Increase 
Per  Cent 
Since  Last 
Census 

—  Increase  in  Percentage  Per  Year  — 
Since           Since        Since          Since 
Last  Census     1860          1870           1880 

1860  

48,726,804 

180. 
85. 
166. 
1.4 
105. 

109. 

10.8 
5.8 
10.3 
0.1 
7.4 

7.7 

10.8 
8.3 
9.0 
6.8 
6.9 

5.8 
8.0            10.3 
5.4              5.2 
5.9              5.9 

1870  
1880  
1890  

141,240,028 
262,051,282 
697,116,630 

1900 

707,912,960 

1910  
1900  .  . 

1,450,601,488 
Land  Only 
630,444,960 

1910  

1,317,195,448 

Table  15. 
California. 

ASSESSED  VALUATION  OF  EEAL  ESTATE  AND  IMPEOVEMENTS. 
From  United  States  Census. 


Year 


Increase 
Per  Cent 
Assessed  Valuation    in  10  Years     10  Years 


— Increase  in  Percentage  Per  Year — 
In  Last       Since         Since         Since 


1860 


1870 


1880 


1860  

66,906,631 

1870  .  ... 

176,527,160 

164. 

10.2 

10.2 

1880 

466,273,585 

164. 

102 

10  2 

10.2 

1890  
1900  
1910  

891,449,172 
974,492,563 
2,163,020,203 

91. 

9. 
122. 

6.8 
0.9 

8.4 

9.1 
7.0 
7.3 

8.5 
6.0 
6.6 

6.8 
3.9 
5.4 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 


Table  16. 

California. 

ASSESSED  VALUATION  OF  ALL  PEOPEETY  IN  CALIFOENIA. 

From  United  States  Census. 


Grunsky 


1253 


Year 


Increase         — Increase  in  Percentage  Per  Year — 

Per  Cent         In  Last        Since         Since         Since 

Assessed  Valution     In  10  Years     10  Years        1860  1870          1880 


I860  

139,654,667 

1870   .  . 

269,644,068 

93. 

6.8 

6.8 

1880  
1890  

584,578,036 
1,101,136,431 

117. 
89. 

8.0 
6.6 

7.4 

7.1 

8.0 
7.3 

6.6 

1900 

.  1,290,238,964 

17. 

1.6 

5.8 

5.4 

4.1 

1910  

2,921,277,451 

126. 

8.5 

6.3 

6.2 

5.6 

Table  17. 

ASSESSED  VALUATION  OF  EEAL  ESTATE  IN  SAN  MATEO  COUNTY, 
1901  TO  1914. 

Supplementing  Information  in  Table  No.  6. 


1254 


Eeal  Estate  Other  Than 

—  City  and  Town  Lots  — 

—  City  and  Town  Lots  —     Imp 

irovements 

Year 

Land  Only 

Improvements 

Land  Only 

Improvements  I 

>y  Tenants 

1901  $ 

6,916,210 

$2,537,835 

$1,637,845 

$    906,645 

1902  

6,972,220 

2,525,480 

1,678,425 

948,445 

1905  

8,583,580 

3,017,090 

2,333,145 

1,197,640 

1906  

8,878,030 

2,813,315 

3,057,655 

1,200,540 

88,410 

1907  

10,908,940 

3,139,445 

4,413,210 

1,535,565 

17,250 

1909  

10,643,230 

4,416,025 

6,611,415 

2,396,210 

35,400 

1910  

10,875,500 

4,454,310 

6,542,870 

2,664,790 

36,950 

1911  

12,225,900 

4,635,590 

6,747,180 

2,758,160 

67,790 

1912  

12,385,750 

4,745,590 

6,895,680 

2,818,610 

74,850 

1913  

12,621,210 

4,984,240 

6,981,130 

2,944,350 

68,950 

1914  

12,742,450 

5,178,890 

7,167,770 

3,008,600 

67,700 

363 


Grunsky 


SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 


Table  17  (Continued). 


1255 


ASSESSED  VALUE  OF  EEAL  ESTATE,  SAN  MATED  COUNTY. 


Year 


-All  Real  Estate  in  County- 


Land  Only  Including  Improvements 


1900 

1901 

1902 

1903 

1904 

1905 

1906 

1907 

1908 

1909 

1910 

1911 

1912 

1913 

1914. 


*  8,503,000 

8,554,055 

8,633,000 

9,970,000 

10,360,000 

10,916,725 

11,981,000 

15,322,150 

16,542,500 

17,256,500 

17,413,000 

19,020,000 

19,293,000 

19,602,500 

19,910,000 


$11,902,500 
11,998,500 
12,217,000 
13,925,000 
14,333,000 
15,131,500 
16,102,500 
19,997,100 
21,824,000 
24,108,000 
24,532,000 
26,520,000 
26,912,485 
27,531,000 
28,097,000 


364 


Grunsky 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 


(Pages  Nos.  1256  to  1261  inclusive  in  Master's 

copy  cover  Sheets  1  to  6  inclusive,  ' '  Comparison  of  ^55  1261 

Population  and  Assessed  Value  of  Real  Estate", 
etc.) 


365 


Grunsky 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

1262  DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  OLNEY. 

I  have  had  more  or  less  experience  in  appraising  real  estate 
throughout  my  experience  as  a  civil  engineer.  I  have  assisted  in  the 
acquisition  of  properties  for  various  purposes.  About  1892  the  City 
of  Vallejo  acquired  lands  for  reservoir  purposes,  which  I  was  instru- 
mental in  bringing  about  the  acquisition  of. 

As  City  Engineer  I  valued  property  to  the  amount  of  between 
eight  and  nine  million  dollars  that  was  required  for  play-grounds, 
public  parks,  school  houses,  and  for  other  public  purposes.  I  was 
made  arbitrator  in  the  matter  of  the  valuation  of  damages  that  re- 
sulted from  the  construction  of  the  Bay  Shore  Cutoff  of  the  Southern 
Pacific  Railroad.  There  were,  I  think,  some  800  individual  property 
owners  affected  at  that  time.  I  was  also  in  charge  of  the  appraisal  of 
benefits  and  damages  relating  to  the  construction  of  the  Stockton 
Street  Tunnel.  As  City  Engineer,  I  made  an  investigation,  in  a  gen- 
eral way,  into  the  value  of  these  very  lands  which  I  have  been  dis- 
cussing. I  did  not  attempt  to  value  individual  tracts  at  that  time,  but 
I  made  an  investigation  with  considerable  care,  particularly  in  the 
matter  of  the  Lake  Merced  lands,  and  I  generally  informed  myself 
about  the  market  value  of  the  lands,  at  that  time. 

1263  (Counsel  for  Plaintiff  states  that  Mr.  Grunsky 's  figure — made  at 
the  time  he  was  City  Engineer — as  to  reservoir  values,  is  put  in  as  a 
fact  which  occurred  in  connection  with  the  history  of  these  properties, 
and  was  not  put  in  with  the  idea  that  it  constituted  an  admission  on 
the  part  of  the  city  which  was  binding  upon  the  city  in  this  case. 
There  is  no  idea  that  it  is  binding  here  upon  the  city.) 

J265  CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  STEINHART. 

I  am  familiar  with  the  Spring  Valley  Reservoirs,  and  outside  of 
the  study  that  I  gave  when  I  was  in  the  employ  of  the  city,  I  have  been 
on  the  ground  a  number  of  times  since,  and  have  quite  recently  in- 
formed myself  with  reference  to  the  market  value  of  these  properties 
to  the  extent  of  knowing  that  the  values  which  I  found  were  in  excess 
of  the  value  which  these  lands  might  have  if  used  otherwise.  I  made 
no  special  inquiry  with  reference  to  any  particular  tract  of  land  east 
of  San  Andres,  but  made  my  inquiry  generally  with  reference  to  lands 
in  that  vicinity. 

1266  IB  determining  the  value  of  lands  to  the  east  of  San  Andres  Lake, 

and  bordering  along  the  lake,  I  examined  the  figures  which  had  been 
presented  by  Mr.  Baldwin  and  Mr.  Hoag  as  part  of  the  information 
which  I  have  in  connection  with  this  matter. 

I  did  not  value  the  land  to  the  east  of  Crystal  Springs  Lake,  and 
contiguous  to  Crystal  Springs  Lake.  I  placed  no  valuation  upon  any 
of  the  lands  outside  of  the  reservoir  areas,  and  that  applies  to  the  lands 


Gmnsky 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

to  the  west  and  contiguous  to  San  Andres  Lake,  and  to  the  west  and 
contiguous  to  Crystal  Springs  Lake. 

In  the  Calaveras  region  I  did  not  reach  any  conclusion  other  than 
that  the  value  which  I  placed  upon  the  land  was  higher  than  the  land 
values  for  ordinary  uses.    It  is  not  my  theory  that  the  reservoir  value       1267 
must  always  be  higher  than  the  value  of  the  land. 

Kef  erring  to  the  San  Andres  lands ;  I  did  not  place  any  valuation 
upon  those  lands  other  than  that  they  have  a  greater  value  than  they 
have  for  the  ordinary  farming  and  grazing  purposes,  due  to  the  fact 
that  they  are  reservoir  lands.  The  same  thing  applies  to  Arroyo 
Valle. 

If  I  had  found  the  lands  surrounding  Crystal  Springs  were  worth 
$12.50  per  acre,  I  do  not  think  that  I  would  have  valued  the  Crystal 
Springs  Reservoir  differently  than  I  did,  and  if  I  had  found  that  the 
lands  surrounding  San  Andres  were  worth  $10  an  acre,  I  do  not  think 
that  I  would  have  valued  San  Andres  Reservoir  any  differently  than 
I  did.  I  would  pre-suppose  different  values  in  that  section  from  those 
which  do  exist  there,  and,  therefore,  I  am  unable  to  answer  the  ques- 
tion. The  value  of  adjacent  land  is  not  necessarily  the  measure  of  the 
reservoir  land  values.  1268 

I  did  not  take  any  exhibited  figure  for  a  valuation  of  the  Calav- 
eras land,  but  I  knew  what  the  valuations  were  that  had  been  placed 
upon  it  by  Mr.  Gale,  Mr.  Parks,  and  Mr.  Clayton.  I  do  not  know  Mr. 
Parks,  and  am  accustomed  in  my  scientific  work,  to  take  the  word  of  a 
man  I  do  not  know,  only  to  a  certain  extent. 

I  ascertained  the  cost  of  the  different  parcels  of  watershed  lands  1269 
in  Crystal  Springs  Watershed  from  the  records  furnished  to  me.  I 
did  not  know  of  that  from  other  sources  than  the  compiled  record. 
The  parcel  numbers,  as  they  are  represented  on  the  map  of  the  Spring 
Valley  Water  Co.,  are  the  parcel  numbers  to  which  I  referred  in  my 
memorandum.  In  getting  at  my  valuations,  I  assumed  a  certain  re- 
lationship between  the  neighboring  land  and  the  reservoir  land  for  the 
purpose  of  determining  to  what  extent  the  cost  of  the  lands  might  con- 
firm conclusions  reached.  I  was  endeavoring  to  secure  every  fact 
which  a  purchaser  would  make  himself  acquainted  with,  in  connection 
with  the  value  of  these  properties.  In  reaching  my  conclusions,  I  1270 
assumed  a  certain  relation  in  value  between  reservoir  lands  and  neigh- 
boring lands  on  the  basis  of  the  entire  area.  The  comparison  was 
made  between  cost  per  acre  of  the  reservoir  land  with  that  of  the 
watershed  land.  In  reaching  my  conclusion,  irrespective  of  cost,  I  did 
not  assume  any  relationship  between  neighboring  lands  and  reservoir 
lands.  I  do  not  recall  any  purchase  of  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Co. 
of  reservoir  lands  where  the  price  was  $1000  per  acre.  I  tried,  in  a 
general  way,  to  get  at  the  facts  involved  in  the  purchases  that  I 
examined. 

367 


SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

I  did  not  examine  the  deed  from  the  Drinkhouse  people,  but  my 
recollection  with  reference  to  the  Drinkhouse  property  is,  that  what 
was  purchased  after  the  condemnation  proceedings  was  all  classed  as 
reservoir  lands,  and  that  of  that  entire  tract  that  was  acquired  at  that 
1271  time,  not  all  was  in  the  reservoir  below  elevation  288.  I  did  not  ex- 
amine the  findings  of  fact,  or  the  conclusions  of  law  in  the  Drinkhouse 


1272  (Counsel  for  the  Defendant  stated  that  the  record  in  the  Drink- 
house  matter  shows  the  following :   the  judgment  was  for  $4667 ;  the 
severance  was  $435.50;  cost  of  suit  $100,  making  a  total  judgment  of 
$5,203.    The  testimony  established  $2,000  to  $3,000  for  the  improve- 
ments.) 

In  regard  to  the  Drinkhouse  matter,  I  did  not  go  beyond  ascer- 

1273  taining  what  the  cost  was  that  had  been  paid  for  these  properties. 

Parcel  No.  50:  Table  1,  shows  approximate  cost  per  acre  in  the 
reservoir  $208,  and  in  the  watershed  $20.80. 

(Counsel  for  Plaintiff  advised  that  the  judgment  above  referred 
to — in  the  Drinkhouse  matter — was  reversed  in  the  92  Cal.,  and  the 
case  was  sent  back  for  a  new  trial.) 

Parcel  No.  44 ;  I  did  not  include  this  in  my  Table  No.  1,  for  the 
reason  that  it  was  a  peculiarly  located  tract,  crossing  the  island  in  the 
reservoir.  If  it  had  been  included  with  the  other  tracts,  and  the  entire 
area  in  the  reservoir,  and  the  adjacent  watershed  lands,  as  covered  by 
the  table,  and  by  the  other  tracts  which  have  some  portions  within  the 
reservoir,  it  would  have  modified  the  result  but  slightly.  That  piece 

1274  is  not  entirely  within  the  reservoir.    I  had  no  particular  reason  for  not 
including  it,   excepting  that  it  appeared  peculiarly  located.     The 
Spring  Valley  paid  $1,867.50,  or  about  $85  per  acre  for  it.    It  is  con- 
tiguous to,  and  immediately  to  the  north  of  parcel  50. 

The  land  in  the  reservoir  was  of  a  different  character  than  the 
neighboring  land,  as  most  of  it  was  nice,  level  land,  and  had  improve- 

1275  ments  upon  it.    I  was,  to  some  extent,  familiar  with  the  land  in  the 
main  Crystal  Springs  Reservoir  before  it  was  innundated,  but  not 
with  the  land  in  the  upper  Crystal  Springs,  which  was  already  under 
water  at  the  time  I  became  acquainted  with  the  country. 

Questioned  by  Mr.  Olney. 

The  Upper  Crystal  Springs  Eeservoir  is  that  portion  which  lies 
to  the  south  of  the  earthen  dam,  across  which  the  road  to  Half  Moon 
Bay  runs,  and  was  known  as  the  Canada  del  Remunda. 

CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  STEINHART. 

I  was  not  familiar  with  the  portion  under  the  San  Andres.  The 
most  careful  examination  that  I  made  of  the  Crystal  Springs  land  be- 
fore water  was  held  back  by  the  Crystal  Springs  dam,  was  near  the 

1276  dam  site,  and  outside  of  that,  I  did  not  study  any  portion  of  it  closely 

368 


Gnuisky 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

that  I  can  recall.  I  was  generally  familiar  with  the  character  of  the 
country.  I  made  no  estimate  of  the  relative  values  of  that  land  as 
land,  and  the  neighboring  lands. 

Parcel  45 :  I  do  not  want  to  be  understood  as  stating  that  I  put 
any  valuation  on  the  portion  within  the  reservoir,  and  the  portion 
without  the  reservoir,  but  I  have,  in  Table  1,  the  apportionment  of 
cost  as  $223  per  acre  to  the  land  in  the  reservoir,  and  $22.30  to  that 
in  the  watershed. 

Parcel  No.  55 ;  apportioned  at  $370  per  acre  in  the  reservoir,  and 
$37  in  the  watershed. 

Parcel  No.  46 :  That  is  given  in  the  table  in  combination  with 
parcel  No.  45.  45  and  46  are  given  together.  $223  per  acre  to  the 
reservoir  land,  and  $22.30  to  the  watershed  land. 

Questioned  by  Mr.  Olney. 

The  apportionment  is  all  on  the  ten  to  one  basis. 

CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY   MR.   STEINHART. 

Parcel  No.  38  is  a  tract  of  land  that  does  not  appear  in  Table 
No.  1,  and  I  make  it  $509  per  acre  for  the  reservoir  lands,  and  in 
round  numbers,  $50.90  per  acre  for  the  watershed  lands. 

Parcel  No.  68:  The  apportionment  of  cost  of  the  number  of  1277 
tracts  included  within  this  parcel  was  $1700  per  acre  in  the  reservoir, 
and  $170  per  acre  in  the  watershed.  That  was  the  San  Mateo  water 
purchase  with  which  I  am  familiar  in  a  general  way.  There  were 
included,  in  that  purchase,  some  water  rights,  pumping  works,  and 
other  property. 

Parcel  No.  92 :  $628  per  acre  in  the  reservoir,  and  $62.80  to  land 
not  in  the  reservoir. 

Parcel  No.  89 :  Parcels  89  and  59  were  treated  together,  and  the 
apportionment  of  cost  on  the  same  basis  was  $343  per  acre  in  the  res- 
ervoir, and  $34.30  per  acre  in  the  watershed. 

Calaveras  is  suited  for  reservoir  purposes,  and  in  placing  my  val-  1278 
uation  upon  reservoir  sites,  I  have  intended  to  place  the  market  value 
thereon.  Market  value  is  the  value  which  property  would  have  in 
exchange.  It  is  the  amount  which  property  would  bring  in  the  market 
if  the  owner  were  a  willing  seller  and  the  purchaser  were  a  prudent 
man,  making  necessary  inquiries.  I  understand  quite  well  the  differ- 
ence between  cost  theory  and  reproduction  theory  of  valuation,  but  I 
know  that  neither  of  them  represents  value,  and  in  making  my  valua- 
tion of  reservoir  sites,  I  have  adopted  neither  theory.  I  have  endeav- 
ored to  obtain  an  idea  of  the  effect  of  these  various  circumstances  upon 
the  market. 

In  the  case  of  the  properties  on  the  east  side  of  the  bay,  I  have       1279 
valued  the  reservoir  on  the  basis  of  property  that  was  available  for 
such  use,  and  intended  to  be  used  at  some  time.    In  the  case  of  prop- 

369 


Grunsky 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

erties  on  the  west  side  of  the  bay,  I  have  valued  them  as  properties 
available  for  the  purpose,  and  ready  to  be  used,  and  in  full  use  imme- 
diately that  they  are  acquired.  I  consider  the  facts  as  they  are  with 
the  reservoirs  having  been  used,  and  their  values  as  reservoirs  having 
been  demonstrated,  and  having  been  developed  to  their  full  yielding 
capacity,  and  have  then  valued  the  land  as  naked  land.  I  think  that 
probably  it  would  be  a  correct  assumption  to  say  that  they  had  been 
used  as  reservoirs,  because  their  availability  for  the  purpose  has 
actually  been  demonstrated,  and  has  an  effect  upon  the  market  value 
of  the  property,  and  that  availability  arises  through  the  fact  that  they 
have  actually  been  used  as  reservoir  sites.  When  I  come  to  a  site 
whose  availability  has  not  been  proven,  in  that  it  has  not  actually  been 

1280  used,  I  do  not  value  it  in  the  same  way.    There  is  no  doubt  in  my  mind 
as  to  the  availability  of  Calaveras  for  reservoir  purposes,  but  the  fact 
has  not  been  demonstrated,  and  in  the  market  it  would  not  have  the 
same  value  as  a  reservoir  that  has  already  demonstrated  its  service- 
ability.    I  have  valued  these  lands  as  though  they  might  be  owned 
by  any  party.     Outside  of  the  San  Mateo  Water  Co.  lands,  which 
were  acquired,  none  of  the  other  lands  acquired  by  the  Spring  Valley 
were  used  for  reservoir  purposes  prior  to  their  purchase. 

1281  I  did  not  assume  any  valuation  for  the  reservoir  land  in  Cala- 
veras, other  than  for  reservoir  purposes.    My  value  of  the  Calaveras 
lands  is  my  judgment.    I  took  all  of  these  circumstances  into  account 
that  would  affect  the  value.    I  took  into  account  also  the  fact  that  the 
city  was  urging  the  construction  of  the  dam,  and  that  the  time  was 
growing  nearer  when  Calaveras  would  be  required  by  somebody.     I 
was  very  much  in  doubt  whether  the  market  value  should  not  be 
placed  somewhat  higher  than  I  finally  concluded  that  it  should  be. 

1282  The  most  recent  purchases  of  which  I  have  a  note  of  land  in 
Calaveras  Valley,  which  land  would  be  land  in  the  reservoir,  are  the 
tracts  marked  f-268,  k-268  and  j-268.     They  were  bought  in  1911. 
j-268  contains  36.81  acres  in  the  reservoir,  and  the  total  cost  was  $6000, 
or  $75  an  acre  for  the  entire  tract,    k-268  contains  28  acres  in  the 
reservoir,  and  cost  $75  an  acre  for  the  entire  tract.    In  placing  a  valu- 
ation of  $200  an  acre  on  the  portion  in  the  reservoir  in  j-268,  I  get  a 
value  for  that  portion  alone  of  $7,360.    That  is  more  than  was  paid  for 
the  entire  tract  of  80  acres,    k-268 ;  28  acres  in  the  reservoir,  at  $200, 
$5,600.     That  would  give  a  valuation  for  the  balance  of  52  acres  of 

1283  $400.     That  balance  I  consider  worth  more  than  $8  an  acre.     These 
purchases  were  made  in  1911,  and  the  date  of  the  valuation  is  1913. 
It  was  known  in  Calaveras  at  that  time  that  the  Calaveras  Valley  was 
intended  to  be  used  as  a  reservoir  site,  and  that  would  have  affected, 
in  some  degree,  the  negotiations  that  went  on  between  the  seller  and 
the  purchaser. 

To  the  best  of  our  information  at  the  present  time  Calaveras 

1284  is  adaptable  for  a  reservoir  site,  and  there  is  no  question  as  to  the 

370 


Grunsky 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

necessity  for  its  immediate  use.  I  want  to  qualify  that,  because  the 
necessity  for  developing  more  water  immediately,  or  in  the  near 
future,  exists;  I  am  putting  myself  back  into  1913  in  weighing  the 
necessity  for  the  immediate  use,  and  at  that  time  the  development  of 
other  sources  appeared  possible.  It  was  possible  that  water  from  the 
mountains  might  have  been  brought  in  within  a  reasonable  time. 
There  was  some  uncertainty  about  the  time  when  Calaveras  would  be 
called  requisite. 

Beginning  with  the  year  1907,  I  think  you  can  carry  that  right 
forward  to  1913,  and  say  that  there  was  no  necessity  for  the  immediate 
use  of  Calaveras,  although  the  question  as  to  the  degree  of  necessity 
varies.  A  person  selling  the  bare  land  with  this  question  as  to  when 
it  might  be  used,  or  as  to  whether  it  might  ever  be  used,  would  con- 
sider that  as  a  factor,  and  therefore  would  not  get  as  high  a  price  for  1285 
his  land  because  of  that  fact.  He  would  also  take  into  account  that  the 
probability  of  an  early  use  was  evident  by  the  work  which  had  been 
done  as  early  as  1902  in  exploring  for  dam  sites,  and  the  further  fact 
that  construction  work  in  the  nature  of  preparation  for  the  dam,  and 
the  building  of  a  concrete  tunnel  was  well  under  way,  and  that  some 
$300,000  had  been  expended  there,  at  the  close  of  1913.  Those  are 
elements  that  would  affect  the  market  value. 

The  fact  that  the  reservoir  lands  have  been  assembled  at  each  site 
in  one  holding  would  affect  the  value  at  the  time  when  these  several 
parcels  are  all  assembled  into  one  holding,  although  the  increase  of 
value  resulting  from  that  assembling,  may  be  greater  for  the  reservoir  1286 
that  is  to  be  used  immediately  than  in  the  case  of  one  whose  use  is  far 
in  the  future.  It  is  an  added  value  after  the  reservoir  has  gotten  into 
the  hands  of  one  holder.  In  my  valuation,  I  have  taken  all  these  fact- 
ors into  consideration,  and  I  have  taken  into  account  the  fact  that  the 
reservoir  lands  have  been  assembled  at  each  site  into  one  holding. 

In  connection  with  the  Peninsula  reservoir  system,  I  have  consid- 
ered the  cost  of  the  reservoir  lands  by  taking  the  ratio  of  ten  to  one. 
I  have  given  consideration  to  the  cost  of  the  land  in  the  case  of  the 
Calaveras.  In  the  case  of  the  Arroyo  Valle,  and  the  San  Antonio  I 
have  simply  indicated  a  percentage  increase  of  value  due  to  the  fact 
of  their  being  reservoir  lands,  and  therefore  I  did  not  analyze  the  cost 
of  the  land  particularly.  1287 

The  percentage  increase  was  based  both  upon  the  theory  that  the 
lands  have  been  assembled  into  a  whole,  and  upon  the  theory  that 
they  had  a  reservoir  value.  My  judgment  was  that  that  would  be  a  rea- 
sonable allowance  for  their  additional  value.  I  felt  that  because,  as  City 
Engineer  I  had  placed  a  valuation  upon  that  ground,  that  it  might 
have  affected  market  value,  and  the  valuation  as  judicially  determined 
in  the  rate  case  of  1903  comes  in  the  same  category,  and  is  referred  to 
for  the  reason  that  that  would  have  an  undoubted,  and  a  very  material 
effect  upon  the  market  value.  Regarding  my  statement  that  San  Fran- 

371 


Grunsky 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

cisco  has  declared  the  Peninsula  reservoirs,  and  Lake  Merced  neces- 
sary as  a  part  of  its  ultimate  water  supply  system,  I  refer  there  to  the 

1288  well-known  fact  that  the  City  has  endeavored  to  make  a  purchase  of 
these  properties,  and  has  thereby  recognized  the  necessity  of  having 
the  Peninsulas  as  a  feature  safe-guarding  the  supply,  and  adding 
water  to  the  system.    That  fact  was  established  when  the  purchase  of 
the  Spring  Valley  properties  was  submitted  to  a  vote  of  the  people  in 
1909,  and  was  rejected,  and  also  more  recently,  when  it  was  also  re- 
jected.   Also  the  fact  that  there  are  no  other  sites  at  hand  for  the 
storage  of  water  in  large  amounts.    The  San  Miguel  Eeservoir  is  suit- 
able for  a  reservoir  -site,  but  that  is  a  small  reservoir  known  as 

1289  the  Rock  Creek  Reservoir,  and  was  suggested  to  the  City  of  San  Fran- 
cisco in  1874,  by  Mr.  Scowden. 

The  Calaveras,  Arroyo  Honda,  and  San  Antonio  reservoir  sites 
command  the  flow  of  the  Alameda  Creek  and  its  tributaries,  and  they 
are  the  sites  which  command  quite  well  the  water  output  from  the 
Alameda  Creek,  supplemented  by  such  amounts  of  water  as  can  be 
obtained  from  the  artesian  wells  at  Pleasanton.  There  were  other  res- 
ervoir sites  available  in  1913,  but  they  were  more  remote. 

My  statement  in  relation  to  the  proximity  of  reservoir  sites  to 
population  centers  applies  particularly  to  the  reservoirs  on  the  Penin- 
sula, Crystal  Springs,  San  Andres  and  Pilarcitos.  It  also  applies  with 
a  great  deal  of  force  to  Calaveras,  which  will  be  in  a  similar  position 
in  the  course  of  time  on  the  east  side  of  the  bay  that  we  find  these 
other  reservoirs  on  the  west  side.  Those  are  all  factors  going  to  make 

1290  up  the  value  of  a  reservoir  site. 

The  principal  difference  between  Calaveras  reservoir  site  and  the 
Peninsula  reservoir  site,  lies  in  the  fact  that  the  former  may  not  be  in 
full  use  for  a  great  many  years,  and  that  its  serviceability  has  not  yet 
been  demonstrated.  Also  the  further  fact  that  the  means  of  distribut- 
ing the  water  are  not  yet  there,  and  the  water  has  not  yet  found  a 
market,  while  the  market  exists  for  the  reservoirs  on  the  Peninsula 
side.  Calaveras  will  supply  about  37,000,000  gallons  of  water  per  day, 
and  San  Francisco  is  now  using  about  40,000,000  gallons  per  day,  so 
that  the  capacity  of  the  Calaveras  developed  will  be  an  excess  capacity 
to  the  capacity  that  will  be  needed  for  San  Francisco  for  a  time.  In 
the  meantime,  the  City  will  probably  continue  its  work  of  bringing  in 
water  from  the  Sierra  Nevada  Mountains,  and  may  postpone  the  time 

1291  still  further,  when  the  full  yield  of  Calaveras  will  be  required. 

In  valuing  the  Calaveras  as  a  reservoir  proposition,  I  considered 
the  possibility  of  competition  by  the  City  to  that  extent,  namely, 
whether  the  City  owns  it  or  whether  it  is  owned  by  the  Spring  Valley. 
If  other  water  is  brought  in  here,  it  may  defer  the  time  when  it  will  be 
in  full  use.  Some  of  the  principle  factors  of  difference  between  the 
Peninsula  and  Calaveras  are,  first,  the  fact  that  the  Peninsula  has  been 

372 


Grunsky 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

demonstrated  to  be  adaptable  for  water  for  reservoir  purposes,  while 
Calaveras  has  not ;  second,  the  fact  that  in-as-much  as  the  City  is  now 
using  the  reservoir  water  from  the  Peninsula,  there  is  an  immediate 
use,  as  against  a  not  immediate  use  for  Calaveras ;  third,  the  fact  that 
Calaveras  may,  to  a  certain  extent,  be  put  out  of  business,  as  it  were, 
to  its  full  capacity  by  the  City  bringing  hi  Hetch  Hetchy  water;  and 
fourth,  the  distributing  system  is  not  yet  constructed  from  Calaveras, 
whereas  one  exists  from  the  Peninsula  reservoirs.  Also  the  population 
is  larger  on  this  side  of  the  bay  in  immediate  proximity  to  the  reser- 
voirs, and  these  reservoirs  are  of  particular  importance,  due  to  the 
possibility  of  damage  by  earthquake,  or  possibly  other  matters  that  I 
do  not  think  of  right  now. 

In  the  last  quake,  the  damage  to  the  mains  of  Spring  Valley  oc- 
curred, just  south  of  San  Francisco,  and  between  the  city  of  San 
Francisco  and  Pilarcitos.  These  were  the  main  lines  bringing  in  the 
water  from  the  Crystal  Springs  and  the  San  Andres. 


TWENTY-FIRST  HEARING.  AUGUST  17, 1915. 

Witnesses :    C.  E.  GRUNSKY  and  HARRY  THOMAS  CORY.  1292 

CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.   STEINHART. 

Questioned  by  Mr.  Olney. 

There  was  a  mistake  made  in  Table  1  of  my  report.  With  ref- 
erence to  the  division  of  98.94  acres,  known  as  Tract  55 :  In  the  table 
it  appears  that  there  are  24.70  acres  in  the  reservoir,  and  74.24  acres 
in  the  watershed.  Those  figures  were  transposed  in  the  information 
that  was  given  me,  and  as  a  result  all  figures  that  are  dependent 
thereon  are  slightly  modified.  In  Table  1,  in  the  last  line,  "Totals  1293 
and  Means",  the  indicated  cost  of  reservoir  lands  should  be  $421  in- 
stead of  $430,  and  the  watershed  lands  $42.10.  For  the  particular 
tract,  No.  55,  the  cost  of  reservoir  lands  would  be  $155,  and  of  water- 
shed lands  $15.50.  Also,  the  total  area  in  the  reservoir  will  appear 
as  1,387.46,  and  the  total  area  in  the  watershed  as  7,057.16. 

In  Table  4,  on  the  line  "Crystal  Springs",  the  recapitulation  in 
the  last  line  of  Table  1,  and  at  the  bottom  of  the  table,  the  combined 
figures  are  13,204.01  acres  in  both  reservoir  and  watershed;  1923.81 
acres  of  reservoir  lands ;  11,280.20  acres  of  watershed  lands ;  total  cost 
$985,980.80.  The  indicated  cost  per  acre  of  reservoir  lands,  $323,  and 
of  watershed  $32.30. 

Table  10,  the  line  ' '  Crystal  Springs ' ',  shows  the  approximate  date 
of  purchase  1882,  and  the  estimated  cost  per  acre  $421.  The  indicated 
value,  1903,  $1,170;  the  indicated  value,  1913,  $1,910;  the  weighted 

373 


Grunsky 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

average  at  the  bottom  of  the  table  for  1903,  $1,056,  and  for  1913, 
$1,723. 

1296  The  City  of  San  Francisco  determined,  in  1910,  by  vote  to  build 
Hetch  Hetchy,  and  rejected  the  purchase  of  the  Spring  Valley  Water 
Co.,  but,  of  course,  in  the  rejection  the  question  of  price  had  some- 
thing to  do  with  it.    They  have  never  voted  to  the  contrary.    I  drew 
up  a  plan  for  the  construction  of  Hetch  Hetchy,  under  instructions 

1297  from  the  Board  of  Supervisors,  and  in  the  report  I  stated  that  the 
proper  proceeding  for  San  Francisco  to  pursue  would  be  to  first 
acquire  the  established  waterworks,  and  use  as  much  thereof  as  could 
be  incorporated  with  the  system.    In  that  report  I  suggested  a  reser- 
voir at  Belmont,  but  the  reservoir  planned  at  that  point  was  one  of 
comparatively  small  capacity.  My  report  stated  that  the  Hetch  Hetchy 
project  could  be  carried  out  as  an  independent  system  by  acquiring 
reservoirs  at  Altamont  and  Belmont,  and  excluding  all  reservoirs  of 
the  Spring  Valley  Water  Co.    It  also  stated  that  the  reliability  of  ser- 
vice would  be  in  favor  of  a  system  similar  to  that  which  is  now  estab- 
lished, with  the  large  storage  nearby.    The  water  supply  system  which 

1298  I  proposed  and  recommended  over  my  signature  in  that  report,  I  still 
hold  to  be  a  feasible  system. 

If,  in  valuing  a  reservoir  site,  I  found  that  a  recent  sale  of  land 
had  been  made  in  that  reservoir  by  a  person  having  knowledge  of  the 
fact  that  it  was  a  reservoir  location,  I  should  consider  that  sale  entitled 
to  consideration,  but  it  is  by  no  means  certain  that  a  sale  of  that  kind 
is  made  with  a  full  knowledge.  It  also  makes  a  difference  where  the 
land  is  located,  and  what  its  character  is,  because  the  various  parcels 
may  have  very  different  market  values  at  the  time  of  the  sales.  Of 
course,  the  greater  number  of  sales  of  that  character,  the  better  the 

1299  indication  as  to  the  market  value  at  the  time  the  sales  were  made. 
Such  sales  would  be  a  matter  for  consideration  in  fixing  what  the 
market  value  was  for  reservoir  use,  as  well  as  for  other  purposes.    If 
all  the  lands  in  that  reservoir  have  been  sold  by  persons  who  knew  the 
fact  that  they  were  to  be  used  for  reservoir  purposes,  then  the  sales 
were  probably  a  good  indication  of  the  market  value.    If  it  is  taken 
as  a  whole,  and  includes  all  of  the  land  that  is  necessary  for  the  de- 
velopment of  the  reservoir,  the  presumption  is  that  it  is  market  value 
at  which  these  lands  are  sold.    In  valuing  the  reservoir  site,  I  should 

1300  only  consider  the  sales  of  that  kind  as  one  of  the  factors  to  be  con- 
sidered in  determining  the  value  of  reservoir  lands.    Some  of  the  other 
factors  are  the  availability  of  the  reservoir  site,  the  amount  of  water 
which  it  commands,  the  location  of  the  reservoir  site,  and  its  proximity 
to  population  centers.    Also  any  facts  which  are  known  with  reference 
to  the  value  of  similar  properties.    If  a  seller  did  know  these  facts,  I 
would  not  ignore  them,  and  I  would  not  ignore  the  price  at  which  land 
was  sold.    If  I  had  prices  at  which  the  land  was  sold  I  would  assume 
it  possible  that  the  seller  did  not  know  these  facts.    He  might  know  the 

374 


Gnmsky 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

advantages  of  his  own  land,  but  I  should  always  consider  it  possible 
that  he  did  not  know  them.    The  purchaser  would  have  an  advantage       1301 
as  a  general  rule  over  the  seller,  because  of  the  seller's  lack  of  knowl- 
edge as  to  the  advantages  that  his  own  land  possessed. 

Referring  to  the  rise  in  the  assessed  value  of  lands  in  San  Mateo 
County,  I  made  only  such  effort  to  find  out  how  uniform  this  rise  was 
as  is  indicated  in  the  tables  which  I  have  presented. 

Questioned  by  Master. 

I  investigated  generally  assessed  valuations  of  all  property,  and 
separately  the  assessed  valuations  of  farming  property.  That  is,  real 
estate  other  than  city  and  town  lots,  and  for  that  given  the  assessed 
valuation  of  land,  and  then  compared  that  with  the  valuation  of  land 
only  in  city  and  town  lots. 

CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.   STEINHART. 

I  differentiated  the  assessed  valuations :  On  sheet  No.  6  you  will 
find,  curves  showing  the  assessed  value  of  real  estate,  including  im-  1302 
provements,  the  assessed  valuation  of  real  estate  and  improvements, 
city  and  town  lots  omitted ;  the  assessed  value  of  real  estate  only,  with 
city  and  town  lots  omitted.  I  got  my  assessed  value  of  city  and  town 
lots  from  the  Assessor's  Office,  and  included  whatever  the  Assessor 
had  classed  as  city  and  town  lots.  That  was  compiled  by  my  son,  C. 
E.  Grunsky,  Jr.  I  differentiate  between  city  and  town  lots  and  other 
land  to  this  extent,  that  I  gave  the  information  for  each  of  the  classes 
separately.  San  Mateo  County  is  given  in  Table  6  and  in  Table  17. 
The  value  of  farm  lands  was  also  obtained  from  the  U.  S.  Census,  and  1303 
is  given  in  Table  9.  That  is  not  the  assessed  valuation,  but  it  is  the 
estimate  upon  the  cash  value  of  those  properties  as  placed  by  the  U.  S. 
Census  officials. 

The  Spring  Valley  lands  devoted  to  reservoirs  are  in  the  classifi- 
cation, real  estate  other  than  town  and  city  lots.  They  are  included 
in  the  farming  lands  and  buildings,  Table  9. 

Parcel  No.  44  is  a  peculiarly  located  tract  in  this :  As  I  made  my 
first  selection  of  tracts  which  was  for  the  purpose  of  endeavoring  to 
obtain  some  idea  of  the  cost  of  reservoir  lands,  that  tract  showed  a 
small  portion  of  watershed  surrounded  by  the  water  of  the  lake  or 
reservoir,  and  that  peculiarity  and  the  peculiar  location  of  those  water- 
shed lands  caused  me  to  omit  that  from  consideration  when  I  prepared 
my  table  in  the  first  place.  The  watershed  land  is  the  island  on  that 
tract,  but  the  tract  is  not  composed  entirely  of  that  island.  1304 

Map  3,  parcel  No.  72  of  "Plaintiff's  Exhibit  8";  24  acres  in  the 
reservoir,  and  8.80  acres  in  the  watershed.  The  essential  difference 
between  these  lands  within  and  outside  of  the  reservoir  is  the  location. 
The  land  is  on  the  slope  of  the  hill  from  the  summit  of  the  ridge  east- 
erly to  the  reservoir.  (Witness  here  explained  that  for  a  moment  he 

375 


Grunsky 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

had  been  misled  as  to  the  piece  indicated  on  the  map,  and  that  he  now 

1305  recognized  72  as  a  long,  slender  strip,  in  which  there  is  very  little  dif- 
ference between  the  land  which  is  in  the  reservoir  and  the  land  that 
is  on  the  hillside.) 

Parcel  73 :  There  may  be  some  of  that  that  extends  over  the  top 
of  the  hill.  It  is  supposed  to  follow  the  ridge.  There  is  nothing  on 
the  map  to  indicate  that  the  portion  in  the  reservoir  was  any  different 
from  the  portion  outside.  There  is  only  the  knowledge  that  the  lower 
portion  of  that  tract,  the  southwesterly  corner,  is  lower  down  on  the 
ridge,  but  there  is  no  material  difference  besides  the  elevation.  The 

1306  slope  of  the  lower  portion  may  be  flatter,  and  the  location  of  that  tract 
is  from  the  summit  of  the  ridge  down  into  the  reservoir,  and  near  the 
lowest  portion  of  the  valley,  only  a  small  portion  of  it  being  below  the 
contour  288.     The  portion  below  is  substantially  the  same  as  that 
above  the  contour  line. 

Parcel  90 ;  extends  well  down  into  the  valley,  and  the  land  in  the 
reservoir  is  flatter  land  than  that  over  the  reservoir  line.  There  are 
ravines  which  cut  down  through  the  land  from  the  east.  This  is  the 
Howard  tract,  which  includes  a  part  of  the  summit  of  the  ridge,  and 
the  northerly  portion  of  the  dam  site,  and  extends  along  San  Mateo 
Creek  for  some  distance.  The  reservoir  land  to  a  considerable  extent 

1307  is  valley  land,  and  closely  adjacent  to  the  valley  land,  as  I  know  from 
my  knowledge  of  the  situation  there,  and  from  my  having  been  on  the 

1307-1309  ground. 

(Discussion  between  Counsel  in  regards  to  statement  by  Witness 
in  relation  to  lands  under  the  reservoir  being  of  a  different  character 
than  the  neighboring  lands — page  1274  of  transcript.  Witness  here 
explained  that  when  he  said  different  land,  it  had  relation  to  the  fact 
that  when  separated  from  the  land  in  the  valley,  the  back  land  would 
have  a  different  value  from  what  it  would  in  combination  with  the 
valley  land,  and  in  that  sense  he  referred  to  it  as  entirely  different 
land.) 

Its  character  is  also  different  in  the  matter  of  much  of  it  being 
brush  covered,  and  less  available  for  use  than  other  lands.  Most  of 

1310  the  land  that  lies  to  the  west  of  San  Andres  is  brush  covered,  and  is 
hill  land.    I  do  not  think  that  I  stated  at  any  time  that  that  land,  as 
it  continues  into  the  reservoir,  was  of  a  different  character  the  minute 
it  struck  the  reservoir  line.     There  was  no  immediate  change  at  the 
reservoir  line.    In  speaking  of  the  value  of  the  land,  and  the  elements 
that  affect  value,  I  made  a  distinction.    Referring  to  parcel  No.  14; 

1311  the  portion  under  the  reservoir  line  extends  into  the  valley,  and  the 
portion  above  extends  over  the  hill  tops. 

I  have  a  knowledge  of  the  land  immediately  south  of  that,  and 
have  traveled  over  it.  It  is  a  narrow  valley,  and  I  assume  that  the 
land  above  the  dam  was  somewhat  similar  to  the  land  below  it. 

376 


Grunsky 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

Parcel  No.  12 :  I  made  no  assumption  with  reference  to  the  sub- 
division of  the  individual  tracts  of  the  reservoir  land  and  the  hill 
land.  The  analysis  which  I  made  applies  to  these  various  parcels  taken 
in  the  aggregate,  and  thus  taken  there  was  a  certain  amount  of  this 
land  that  was  valley  land,  at  comparatively  low  elevation,  easily  acces- 
sible, and  land  which  added  value  to  the  other  land  that  lies  back  of  it. 
It  is  the  division  of  the  cost  into  those  two  parts  which  I  attempted 
to  make.  The  value  of  the  reservoirs  is  of  date  1913,  but  the  sub-  1312 
division  of  cost  is  of  the  date  of  the  acquisition  of  the  land.  It  would 
be  substantially  correct  for  1913,  and  is  about  the  ratio  which  would 
prevail  at  the  present  time.  I  have  made  no  assumption  with  refer- 
ence to  residential  values  of  the  land  in  the  reservoir  in  comparison 
with  that  on  the  slope. 

I  made  a  careful  study  of  the  assessed  valuations  in  San  Fran- 
cisco, but  I  made  no  inquiry  with  reference  to  the  various  districts  in 
San  Francisco ;  I  simply  dealt  with  the  aggregate  figures.  In  making 
my  valuation,  and  in  building  up  my  cost  analysis,  I  examined,  to 
some  extent,  the  Spring  Valley  deeds  and  contracts  in  regard  to  the 
reservoir  land.  I  do  not  recall  finding  any  single  deed  or  contract  of  1313 
sale  wherein  an  owner  charged  Spring  Valley  ten  times  as  much  for 
the  land  in  the  reservoir  as  for  that  outside,  unless  it  was  the  Drink- 
house  sale.  1313-1314 

(Discussion  between  Counsel  in  regards  to  the  Drinkhouse  case.) 

Apart  from  this  Drinkhouse  case,  I  do  not  know  of  any  case       1315 
wherein  the  seller  knew  concerning  what  portion  of  his  land  was  to 
be  used  for  reservoir  purposes,  and  what  portion  was  to  be  used  for 
other  purposes.    I  do  not  wish  to  be  considered  as  familiar  with  all 
of  the  dealings  of  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Co. 

In  the  case  of  the  Arroyo  Valle  and  San  Antonio  Reservoirs,  I 
did  not  assume  any  fixed  value  for  agricultural  purposes.  I  figured 
that  San  Antonio  and  the  Arroyo  Valle  would  be  worth  less  than  the 
Calaveras.  The  cost  of  developing  the  storage  at  Arroyo  Valle  did  not 
enter  into  consideration  beyond  the  fact  that  the  development  of  stor- 
age is  a  feasibility,  and  the  same  applies  to  San  Antonio,  but  I  should 
say  that  it  was  considered  in  a  negative  way,  that  the  probability  of  1316 
an  early  development  was  remote.  In  comparison  with  other  avail- 
able storages  and  water  developments,  the  early  use  of  those  sites  is 
not  probable.  If  a  company  acquires  a  reservoir  site,  and  builds  a  res- 
ervoir and  uses  it,  and  another  company  acquires  a  reservoir  site,  and 
is  not  able  to  go  ahead  with  it  because  it  has  no  money,  and  assuming 
that  all  other  circumstances  are  the  same  in  the  two  cases,  the  reser- 
voir which  has  been  actually  constructed  would  have  the  higher  value. 
I  took  into  consideration  in  regard  to  my  reservoir  sites  the  feasibility 
of  the  delivery  of  pure  water,  and  I  ranked  all  three  of  these  reservoir 
sites  about  the  same  as  regards  feasibility  for  the  delivery  of  pure 
water. 

377 


Grunsky 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

1317  Q-     *  am  g°ing  to  ask  vou  whether  you  testified  as  follows  in  that 
case  and  whether  you  have  changed  your  opinion  since  giving  that 
testimony : 

"Q.  In  your  examination  and  investigation  of  the  conditions 
' '  surrounding  the  sources  of  supply  of  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Com- 
"pany  what  did  you  find,  if  anything,  which  would  tend  to  injuri- 
"ously  affect  the  water  stored  by  that  company  for  the  purpose  of 
"supplying  the  inhabitants  of  San  Francisco? 

' '  A.  Most  of  the  water  which  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Company 
"delivers  to  San  Francisco  is  reservoir  water.  The  water  is  collected 
"in  reservoirs  from  the  catchment  areas  of  comparatively  small  ex- 
"tent;  these  catchment  areas  are  not  free  from  human  activities; 
"among  these  reservoirs  is  Lake  Merced  lying  within  the  boundaries 
"of  San  Francisco  with  a  considerable  population  on  the  watershed 
"area  that  is  tributary  to  the  lake.  Although  works  have  been  con- 
"structed  for  the  interception  of  surface  drainage  in  order  that  the 
"water  reaching  the  lake  may  be  only  that  which  percolates  through 
"the  sands  the  lake  cannot  be  regarded  as  furnishing  a  perfectly  safe 
"water.  Water  from  such  a  source  should  be  subjected  to  filtration 
"before  delivery  to  the  inhabitants  of  the  city.  In  the  case  of  the 
"Peninsula  Reservoirs  the  watershed  areas  are  low  rolling  hills  and 
"low  mountain  country,  soil  and  brush  covered  and  are  of  the  char- 
' '  acter  from  which  it  cannot  be  hoped  to  obtain  water  of  the  same  high 
"standard  of  excellence  as  would  be  obtained  from  such  high  moun- 
"tain  regions  as  those  of  the  Sierra  Nevada.  Water  obtained  from 
"such  sources  in  order  that  it  may  be  ranked  as  a  high  class  water 

1318  "should  be  filtered. 

"  Q.  Is  there  any  evidence  of  the  fact  that  the  water  used  in  San 
"Francisco  is  not  of  the  highest  excellence? 

"A.  Waters  that  are  subject  to  contamination  have  a  direct 
"effect  upon  the  healthfulness  of  the  municipality  in  which  they  are 
"used.  It  is  often  very  difficult  to  connect  the  cause  of  any  specific 
"disease  with  the  water,  but  it  is  the  experience  throughout  the 
"world  that  when  water  of  a  high  standard  of  excellence  is  substi- 
tuted for  water  of  doubtful  purity  the  prevalence  of  certain  dis- 
"ease  is  materially  reduced.  This  is  notably  true  of  typhoid  fever, 
"and  the  typhoid  fever  death-rate  is  therefore  often  referred  to  in 
"determining  whether  or  not  a  municipality  is  receiving  first-class 
"water. 

"Q.  If  San  Francisco  were  receiving  a  water  that  would  be 
"ranked  of  first  quality  what  would  be  the  expected  death-rate  from 
' '  typhoid  fever,  in  your  opinion  ? 

"A.  The  death-rate  should  be  less  than  10  per  100,000  inhabi- 
tants. 

"Q.  Do  you  know  what  the  death-rate  in  San  Francisco  from 
"typhoid  fever  has  been  for  the  last  few  years? 

378 


Grunsky 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

"A.     The  death-rate  in  San  Francisco  from  typhoid  fever  is 
"about  30  per  100,000  inhabitants." 

My  recollection  is  that  I  did  testify  that  way  in  regard  to  the 
reservoir  sites  on  the  Peninsula,  but  in  the  course  of  the  years  that 
have  elapsed  since  that  testimony  was  given,  I  have  changed  my 
opinion  to  some  extent.  My  criticism  of  those  reservoir  sites,  due  1319 
to  the  fact  that  they  are  low,  rolling  hills,  and  low  mountain  country 
soil,  and  brush  covered,  and  of  a  character  from  which  it  cannot  be 
hoped  to  obtain  water  of  the  same  high  standard  of  excellence,  has 
not  changed,  but  at  the  present  time  we  know  more  about  the  effects 
of  the  storage  of  water  for  a  considerable  time  in  reservoirs  upon 
the  disease  germs.  It  is  also  stated  in  there,  with  reference  particu-  1320 
larly  to  Lake  Merced,  and  also  to  the  watersheds  of  the  other  Pen- 
insula reservoirs,  that  those  areas  are  not  entirely  free  from  human 
activity.  The  fact  that  this  is  a  low,  rolling  country,  covered  with 
shrubs,  is  to  some  extent  a  factor  in  derogation  of  the  reservoir  site 
when  compared  with  water  that  would  be  obtained  from  a  high 
mountain  area.  A  reservoir  site  would  have  no  value  as  a  reservoir 
site  if  the  water  could  not  be  marketed,  or  unless  there  is  a  profit 
in  the  delivery  of  the  water.  I  mean  by  that,  that  the  profit  means 
a  return  in  excess  of  interest  on  the  investment  and  the  cost  of  oper- 
ation. In  my  valuation  of  these  lands  for  reservoir  purposes,  they 
are  valued  as  property  used  in  connection  with  a  public  utility.  At 
the  time  of  the  last  earthquake  the  breaks  that  occurred  in  the 
mains  occurred  between  the  Peninsula  reservoirs  and  San  Francisco, 
and  some  of  the  breaks  occurred  on  the  fault,  namely,  the  Pilarcitos  1321 
pipe  line.  The  San  Andres  gate  house,  which  stands  practically  on  the 
fault,  was  injured  through  the  earthquake. 

(Motion  to  strike  out  all  of  Mr.  Grunsky 's  testimony  denied.)      1321-1324 

RE-DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.   OLNEY. 

"With  reference  to  the  importance  of  the  Peninsula  reservoirs 
in  connection  with  the  supply  of  water  to  San  Francisco:  In  the  1325 
first  place,  these  reservoirs  store  a  very  large  amount  of  water,  'iLe  ii 
which  is  available  within  a  comparatively  short  distance  from  San 
Francisco,  so  that  it  safeguards  any  large  supply  brought  in  from 
other  sources.  When  connected  with  some  supply  from  a  remote 
source,  the  reservoirs  will  act  as  balancing  reservoirs.  They  can  be 
kept  full,  or  nearly  full  of  water,  while  the  city  is  being  supplied, 
so  that  practically  at  all  times  the  large  reserve  will  be  available 
comparatively  close  at  hand,  and  if  an  accident  happens,  it  will 
take  but  a  short  time  to  restore  the  connections  between  the  reser- 
voirs and  the  city.  Merced,  as  one  of  the  bodies  of  water  close  at 
hand,  is  the  reservoir  which  is  particularly  valuable  in  safeguarding 
the  supply,  and  giving  time  in  case  of  an  accident  for  repairs. 

379 


Grunsky 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

Q.  You  have  been  questioned,  Mr.  Grunsky,  about  the  vote  of 
the  people  upon  the  acquisition  of  the  Spring  Valley  properties;  I 
will  ask  you  if  the  responsible  officials  on  behalf  of  the  City  have, 
from  time  to  time,  made  declarations  with  regard  to  the  importance 
of  those  Peninsula  reservoir  sites  in  connection  with  the  water  sup- 
ply of  the  city. 

1325-1328  (The  above  question  was  objected  to  as  immaterial,  incompetent 

and  irrelevant,  etc.,   and  after  discussion  of  the  matter  between 
Counsel  and  the  Master,  the  objection  was  sustained.) 

The  San  Miguel  reservoir  lies  within  the  limits  of  San  Fran- 
cisco. It  is  a  site  in  which  water  could  be  stored  to  the  extent  of 
about  500,000,000  gallons.  Not  a  very  favorable  site,  but  would 
probably  be  feasible  to  carry  out  the  storage  of  water  in  that  site. 

1329  It  was  first  suggested  by  Mr.  Scowden  in  about  1874.    At  the  pres- 
ent rate  of  consumption,  it  would  supply  San  Francisco  for  about 
twelve  or  thirteen  days,  whereas  Lake  Merced  would  supply  the 
city  for  about  sixty  days.    As  compared  with  Crystal  Springs,  Pilar- 
citos,  and  the  San  Andres  system,  it  is  more  in  the  nature  of  a  service 
reservoir,  rather  than  a  storage  reservoir.     With  the  above  system 
as  developed,  the  reservoirs  on  the  Peninsula  would  supply  water  for 
about  700  days. 

The  Belmont  reservoir  site,  with  which  I  am  familiar,  is  a  very 
much  smaller  reservoir  site  than  the  Crystal  Springs.  It  is  about 
in  the  neighborhood  of  300  or  400  acres,  but  I  am  not  sure  of  the 
figure  in  relation  thereto.  I  have  not  the  figures  in  mind  as  to  what 
the  cost  of  that  reservoir  site  would  be  as  compared  with  the  valu- 
ation which  I  have  put  on  these  other  reservoir  sites,  but  I  can  prob- 

1330  ably  answer  that  question  a  little  later.    The  Belmont  reservoir,  on 
account  of  the  limited  capacity  and  the  low  elevation,  could  not 
fully  serve  the  purpose  which  is  now  served  by  the  Crystal  Springs, 
San  Andres,  and  Pilarcitos  reservoirs. 

I  think  I  did  state  in  the  report  which  I  made  to  the  Board  of 
Supervisors  and  the  Board  of  Public  Works  upon  my  plan  of  Hetch 
Hetchy  development,  that  said  project  was  made  as  an  independent 
project,  and  that  it  involved  the  duplication  of  the  pipe  lines  in  San 
Francisco,  and  other  portions  of  the  established  waterworks.  Re- 
ferring to  the  matter  of  a  special  market  valuation  on  lands  avail- 
able for  reservoir  purposes ;  I  know  of  the  purchase  which  the  City 

1331  made  of  reservoir  lands  where  a  higher  price  was  paid  for  lands  sim- 
ply because  they  were  in  the  reservoir.    The  City  bought  the  lands 
known  as  the  Smith  lands,  a  portion  of  which  were  in  the  Hetch 
Hetchy  reservoir  site,  and  the  records  seem  to  show  that  the  City 
paid  more  than  $200  an  acre  for  those  reservoir  lands.    There  were 
included  in  the  same  purchase  lands  outside  the  reservoir  site,  and 
my  recollection  is  that  those  lands  were  bought  at  $10  per  acre,  and 
the  reservoir  lands  were  $256  per  acre.    I  give  those  figures  subject 

380 


Grunsky 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

to  correction.  My  values  were  on  property  as  an  assembled  whole, 
and  this  applies  when  the  assembling  has  been  consummated,  but 
there  is  an  added  market  value,  increasing  as  the  assembling  pro- 
gresses. The  land  comprised  within  a  reservoir  site,  and  valuable 
as  a  reservoir  site,  would  have  a  greater  value  as  an  assembled  whole 
than  the  aggregate  of  the  values  of  separate  tracts  into  which  it 
might  be  divided.  I  think  the  value  which  would  pertain  to  the 
assembled  whole  would  gradually  progress  as  the  separate  tracts 
came  under  a  single  ownership.  When  I  testified  that  the  popula- 
tion of  Alameda  County,  in  the  neighborhood  of  Calaveras,  was  in-  1332 
creasing  rapidly,  I  meant  by  that  the  population  on  the  east  side  of 
the  bay,  which  might  or  would  in  the  course  of  time  have  its  water 
supply  safeguarded  more  or  less  by  such  a  reservoir  as  the  Calaveras. 
It  is  the  population  that  extends  from  San  Jose  northerly  to  Rich- 
mond. I  did  not  mean  in  the  immediate  vicinity  of  the  Calaveras 
reservoir. 

The  estimated  production  of  the  Calaveras  of  37,000,000  gallons 
daily,  as  appearing  in  my  report,  is  my  own  estimate,  and  is  lower 
than  that  which  has  been  made  by  the  engineers  of  the  water  com- 
pany. 

Map  2  "Plaintiff's  Exhibit  A",  parcel  16  and  14:  There  is  a  1333 
reason  for  supposing  a  difference  to  exist  between  the  land  below 
the  San  Andres  dam,  which  is  not  within  the  reservoir,  and  the  land 
above  the  dam  which  is  within  the  reservoir.  The  dam  was  put 
across  the  valley  at  its  narrowest  point,  and  at  that  point  the  hills 
coming  closest  together  mark  the  proper  spot  for  the  dam.  Above 
the  same  there  is  a  spreading  out  of  the  valley,  otherwise  there  would 
have  been  no  such  reservoir  site  there  as  the  San  Andres.  The  fall 
of  the  stream  in  the  case  of  this  reservoir  is  considerably  greater 
below  than  it  is  above,  the  elevation  of  San  Andres  being  nearly 
500  feet  as  compared  with  the  water  surface  elevation  of  about  288 
in  Crystal  Springs. 

The  fact  of  the  earthquake,  and  the  fact  also  of  the  breaking 
of  the  pipe  line  due  to  the  earthquake,  made  more  apparent  than       1334 
before  the  necessity  of  water  storage  in  large  amounts  near  San 
Francisco,  and  the  importance  too  of  a  supply  as  near  the  city  as 
possible.  1335 

In  selecting  a  balancing  reservoir  on  the  Peninsula  in  connec- 
tion with  the  scheme  for  bringing  in  the  Hetch  Hetchy  water,  I 
picked  out  the  Belmont  reservoir  because  that  was  the  best  site  near 
at  hand  that  I  could  find  available,  but  it  only  became  a  balancing 
reservoir.  It  was  to  remain  full  at  all  times,  and  the  discharge  was 
to  be  into  a  full  reservoir,  and  water  drawn  off  from  a  full  reser- 
voir, the  reservoir  being  at  such  an  elevation  that  gravity  flow  into 
the  city  at  a  fair  elevation  to  serve  the  low-lying  districts  would 
have  been  impossible  from  the  outlet  of  the  reservoir,  if  placed  in 

381 


Grunsky 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

the  bottom  of  the  reservoir.  The  plan  was  that  the  water  there 
stored,  about  three  thousand  million  gallons,  should  in  case  of  neces- 
sity be  pumped  into  the  city,  so  that  there  was  a  standby  pump  pro- 
vided in  connection  with  the  Belmont  reservoir.  It  was  quite  a  dif- 
ferent arrangement  from  the  arrangement  that  exists,  or  would  exist 
with  the  Peninsula  reservoirs  now  owned  by  the  Spring  Valley  Wa- 
ter Co.,  as  a  part  of  the  water  supply  system.  In  the  case  of  the 
Belmont  reservoir,  there  is  no  possibility  of  utilizing  the  ordinary 
storage  without  pumping  the  supply  into  San  Francisco ;  the  water- 

1336  shed  that  is  tributary  to  the  Belmont  was  only  about  2%  square 
miles,  and  the  yield  of  water  was  small.    In  the  case  of  the  Pilar- 
citos,  San  Andres  and  Crystal  Springs,  which  are  at  a  higher  eleva- 
tion, they  have  larger  watersheds,  and  their  storage  capacity  is  very 
much  greater.     There  would  be   about  ten  times  the   amount   of 
storage  in  the  reservoirs  of  the  Peninsula  system  as  now  developed 
when  compared  with  the  Belmont  reservoir.    The  water  surface  ele- 
vation of  the  Belmont  as  planned,  in  connection  with  the  Hetch 
Hetchy  project,  was  at  elevation  177  feet  above  city  base ;  the  water 
surface  of  the  Crystal  Springs  is  about  elevation  283  feet  above 
city  base,  and  the  San  Andres  and  Pilarcitos  are  both  higher  than 
Crystal  Springs.    The  elevations  that  are  referred  to  in  the  memo- 
randum which  I  have  submitted,  are  intended  to  be  elevations  above 
Crystal  Springs  datum,  so  far  as  the  Peninsula  system  of  reservoirs 
is  concerned,  and  the  elevations  that  I  have  just  now  mentioned  are 
above  city  base.    With  an  adequate  balancing  reservoir,  the  conduit 
across  the  bay  could  be  kept  smaller,  because  the  irregularities  in 
draft  are  overcome  by  the  amount  that  can  be  stored  in  a  reservoir, 

1337  so  that  an  adequate  balancing  reservoir  will  keep  the  main  pipe 
line  capacity  at  a  minimum.    It  will  be  determined  more  nearly  from 
the  average  requirement  than  it  will  be  by  the  maximum  requirement. 

In  my  valuations  I  did  not  include  anything  for  the  dam  that 
makes  the  reservoir  possible.  I  simply  valued  the  land.  In  regard 
to  the  San  Mateo  Water  Co.  purchase,  I  find  that  the  land  was 
acquired,  and  also  certain  water  rights.  The  purchase  included 
whatever  was  on  the  land,  and  certain  rights  were  reserved  by  the 
seller  to  remove  certain  portions  of  the  pipes  and  other  material 
that  might  be  useful  elsewhere. 

RE-CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  STEINHART 

1338  In  relation  to  the  Smith  purchase,  I  was  referring  to  a  Mr.  Smith 
who  was  owner  of  certain  properties  known  as  the  hog  ranch,  and 
other  lands,  and  of  certain  lands  in  the  Hetch  Hetchy  Valley.    I  did 
not  read  the  agreement  of  sale  between  Mr.  Smith  and  the  City, 
but  I  have  an  impression  that  there  were  about  1300  acres  acquired 
from  him.    It  was  my  impression  that  there  was  a  segregation  at  the 
time  of  that  purchase  as  to  reservoir  lands  and  other  lands. 


SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

(Discussion  between  Counsel  as  to  whether  or  not  the  price  of  1338-1340 
these  lands  was  arrived  at  by  a  segregation  between  the  reservoir 
and  outside  lands.  Counsel  for  Plaintiff  contends  that  the  Board 
of  Supervisors  of  the  City  and  County  of  San  Francisco  segregated 
it  at  the  rate  of  $255  per  acre  for  reservoir  lands,  and  $10  an  acre 
for  the  other  lands.  Counsel  for  Defendant  advised  that  there  is 
nothing  in  the  agreement  about  the  segregation,  but  that  the  purchase 
price  is  a  purchase  price  as  a  whole.) 

The  Belmont  reservoir  has  a  capacity  of  about  three  thousand 
million  gallons,  and  as  the  reservoir  has  a  very  small  watershed,  the 
yielding  capacity  as  far  as  water  production  is  concerned,  would  be 
very  small.  The  reservoir  would  be  more  a  storage  reservoir  than  1341 
anything  else.  For  that  reason  I  compare  it  unfavorably  with  the 
other  reservoirs  which  have  a  larger  watershed  tributary  to  them. 
In  comparing  the  value  of  the  two,  I  would  consider  that  this  is  a 
different  type  of  reservoir,  and  fulfills  a  different  function  from  the 
other  reservoirs,  being  more  nearly  of  the  character  of  simple  storage 
of  water  nearby.  The  additional  character  of  the  other  reservoirs 
is  that  they  have  a  yielding  capacity  of  about  18,000,000  gallons  a 
day,  and  I  consider  that  as  an  item  in  the  valuation  of  the  Crystal 
Springs  reservoir,  because  the  yielding  capacity  is  an  element  of 
value.  It  is  the  opportunity  to  develop  that  which  is  valued,  and 
not  the  water  which  is  developed;  it  is  the  reservoir  as  a  reservoir. 
If  that  reservoir  were  merely  a  storage  reservoir,  with  flat  lands 
all  around  it  and  no  watersheds  tributary  to  it,  I  would  not  value 
it  the  same  as  I  have  valued  it.  When  I  recommended  the  Belmont 
reservoir,  I  recommended  it  as  the  best  that  could  be  had,  but  it  was  1342 
not  what  I  would  have  wanted  in  connection  with  the  system.  The 
system  would  have  been  feasible  for  the  City  of  San  Francisco,  but 
with  less  reliability  of  service  than  desirability.  I  think  you  will 
find  in  one  of  my  reports  in  comparing  the  various  projects,  that 
I  gave  the  advantage  of  reliability  of  service  to  the  Spring  Valley 
Water  Co.'s  works.  The  report  in  which  I  discussed  the  Belmont 
reservoir  was  made  after  the  progress  report  was  made.  1343 

I  am  familiar  with  the  Arroyo  Valle  reservoir.  The  valley  opens 
out,  it  widens  above  the  dam;  the  dam  is  in  the  narrow  por- 
tion of  the  valley.  The  valley  widens  out  possibly  half  a  mile  above 
the  site  of  the  dam,  widening  a  little  almost  immediately  above  the 
dam. 

Map  No.  2,  parcel  14;  this  parcel  has  its  easterly  portion  in  the  1344 
reservior  site,  and  there  is  no  indication  on  the  map  of  the  widening 
out  beyond  the  indicated  water  surface  line,  but  the  valley  of  the 
reservoir  almost  immediately  above  that,  at  the  water  surface,  is 
considerably  wider  than  it  is  at  the  dam  site ;  it  extends  over  from 
parcel  14  into  the  parcels  on  the  east  side  of  the  reservoir. 

The  San  Andres  Creek,  which  I  am  familiar  with  in  a  general 

383 


Grunsky 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

way,  enters  the  reservoir  at  its  upper,  or  northwesterly  end,  and  it 
leaves  the  reservoir  at  the  point  where  the  dam  has  been  constructed. 
It  is  the  closing  of  this  creek  by  the  dam  which  has  made  the  reser- 
voir. The  reservoir  includes,  and  is  on  both  sides  of  the  San  Andres 
Creek,  which  creek  flows  through  the  bed  of  the  reservoir,  and  is 
practically  parallel  with  the  reservoir. 


Cory  Witness :    HARRY  THOMAS  CORY. 

j34£  DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  OLNEY. 

I  am  a  consulting  engineer,  and  have  followed  that  profession 
about  21  years.  I  graduated  in  civil  and  electrical  engineering  from 
Purdue  University,  and  also  took  post-graduate  courses  in  both  civil 
and  electrical  engineering  at  Cornell  University.  In  1893  to  1900 
I  was  professor  of  civil  engineering  in  the  University  of  Missouri, 
then  I  went  as  Dean  of  the  University  of  Cincinnati,  and  retained 
my  position  there  for  three  years.  I  then  went  into  railroad  work, 
becoming  in  June  1904  assistant  to  the  general  manager  of  the 
Southern  Pacific  Co.,  and  in  May  1905  assistant  to  the  President  of 
the  Harriman  lines  in  Arizona  and  Old  Mexico,  which  latter  position 
I  held  until  1911.  In  1906  I  was  assigned,  by  Mr.  Randolph,  to  act 

1346  in  co-operation  with  my  brother,  Professor  C.  L.  Cory,  of  the  Uni- 
versity  of  California,   to  investigate   commercial   and   engineering 
features  of  a  large  power  project  in  Verdi  Eiver,  and  in  April  of 
1906  there  was  added  to  my  duties  the  work  as  general  manager  and 
chief  engineer  of  the  California  Development  Co.,  and  its  subsidiary 
Mexican  Corporation,  which  formed  the  irrigation  system  in  Im- 
perial Valley.     Shortly  after  the  first  of  1910,  I  came  to  San  Fran- 
cisco, and  associated  myself  with  my  brother  in  the  office  of  Con- 
sulting Engineer,  and  have  been  here  ever  since.    My  practice  in  San 
Francisco  has  been  largely  in  hydraulic  engineering,   chiefly  con- 
sidered from  the  commercial  side.     By  that  I  mean  rather  than  de- 
signing and  constructing  systems,  I  have  been  valuing  them  and  con- 
sidering them   as  matters   of  investment,   including  their  earning 
power  and  the  elements  of  cost — the  economic  side  of  engineering, 
as  distinguished  from  the  constructive,  and  creative  and  designing 
side.     I  have  frequently  considered  such  matters  as  reservoir  sites 
and  the  cost  of  their  acquisition.    The  value  of  them  for  the  purposes 
of  watering  cities  and  land,  and  as  parts  of  complete  projects,  and  as 

1347  separate  elements.    I  have  made  a  very  complete  examination  of  res- 
ervoir sites  in  Alameda  County.     The  first  was  in  connection  with 
a  report  made  to  the  agent  of  Mr.  Borax  Smith,  which  involved  the 
determining  of  the  real  assets  of  the  properties  of  the  Union  Water 
Co.    This  company  was  one  of  the  United  Properties,  and  was  the 

384 


Cory 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.   CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

successor  to  first  the  Bay  Cities  Water  Co.,  and  next  the  Sierra 
Water  Supply  Co.,  which  corporations  were  initiated  by  Mr.  Tevis 
and  Mr.  Hanford,  and  finally  the  entire  project,  which  resulted  from 
the  activities  of  those  companies  was  merged  into  the  United  Prop- 
erties Co.  under  the  corporate  entity  of  the  Union  Water  Company. 

The  Union  Water  Co.  proposed  to  serve  water  to  the  East  Bay 
Cities  in  competition  with  the  Peoples  Water  Co.  They  made  an 
offer  to  the  City  of  Oakland  at  one  time  to  sell  their  property,  and 
an  election  was  held  for  a  bond  issue  to  take  over  their  holdings, 
which  election  was  defeated. 

We  were  retained  also  by  the  reorganization  committee  of  the 
Peoples  Water  Co.  to  value  its  properties  and  holdings,  and  we  did 
that,  completing  our  work  last  November.  In  that  connection  we 
had  to  consider  and  value  the  existing  reservoir  sites  at  Lake  Chabot, 
and  Temescal,  and  proposed  possible  sites  at  Upper  San  Leandro, 
San  Pablo,  Pinole,  and  Wildcat,  and  that  valuation  necessarily  in- 
volved the  consideration  of  other  sources  of  supply  which  might  be  1348 
available  both  from  the  Sierra  Mountains  and  from  nearby  sources. 

I  am  familiar  with  the  reservoir  properties  of  the  Spring  Valley 
Water  Co.  across  the  bay,  and  have  made  an  examination  to  ascer- 
tain the  market  values  of  those  particular  properties.  The  results 
of  my  examination  are  in  the  shape  of  a  report.  1350 

The  reasonable  premises  for  judging  of  the  market  value  of 
the  reservoir  lands  in  question  as  of  December  31,  1913,  are  as 
follows : 

1.  That  all  of  the  lands  in  each  of  the  several  reservoirs  be  con- 
sidered as  in  one  parcel  and  ownership. 

2.  That  the  real  property  and  rights  other  than  the  reservoir 
site,  necessary  to  utilize  the  latter,  have  been,  or  can  be,  secured. 

3.  That  there  was  no  legal  obstacle  to  the  sale  to  any  pur- 
chaser, who  on  December  31,  1913,  might  have  desired  the  lands  for 
reservoir  purposes. 

4.  That  the  availability  of  the  property  for  reservoir  purposes 
in  relation  to  the  water  supply  situation  of  the  entire  San  Francisco — 
Oakland  Metropolitan  area  was  appreciated  both  by  the  owner  and 

by  the  possible  purchasers.  1351 

GENERAL  CONSIDERATIONS  : 

It  is  obvious  that  in  general  the  market  value  of  any  piece  of 
real  property  is  determined  by  a  consideration  of  the  highest  use 
to  which  it  may  be  put.  Generally  speaking,  the  highest  use  of  rural 
lands  is  for  agricultural  purposes,  and  the  market  value  is  deter- 
mined by  that  use,  while  the  highest  use  of  urban  lands  is  for  other 
than  agricultural  purposes,  such  as  residences,  business  buildings, 
etc.,  and  their  market  values  are  determined  by  such  uses. 

385 


Cory 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.   CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

Broadly  speaking,  almost  every  piece  of  land  may  be  used  for 
reservoir  purposes — indeed,  water  storage  is  frequently  created  in 
level  fields  for  use  in  connection  with  irrigation  pumping  plants,  etc. 
In  the  majority  of  cases  one  or  more  essential  elements  are  lacking 
to  give  even  natural  basins  practical  value  for  reservoir  purposes. 
Such  elements  of  importance  are  sufficient  watersheds  behind  them; 
precipitation  satisfactory  in  amount  and  character;  practicable  cost 
of  structures;  sufficient  market  for  stored  water;  satisfactory  char- 
acter of  geological  formation,  precluding  excessive  leakage  losses, 
etc.  In  such  cases  the  reservoir  use  of  land  is  below  the  agricul- 
tural or  urban  use. 

Since  the  market  value  of  real  estate  is  generally  determined 
by  its  highest  use,  it  follows  that  the  absolute  minimum  market  value 
of  rural  reservoir  possibilities  is  the  agricultural  value,  and  of  urban 
reservoir  sites  the  residential  or  commercial  values.  In  some  cases 
they  may  govern. 

Otherwise,  agricultural,  residence  or  commercial  urban  uses  are 
lower  than  the  use  of  collecting,  storing  or  distributing  water.  In 
these  cases  the  absolute  maximum  price  which  can  be  paid  for  these 
lands  is  measured  by  the  return  which  can  be  secured  from  a  project 

1352  of  which  they  are  an  essential  part,  together  with  the  costs  of  all 
other  elements  of  the  system. 

With  reservoir  lands,  therefore,  there  are  two  limits — sometimes 
widely  apart ;  the  minimum  being  the  value  for  agricultural  or  urban 
uses,  the  maximum  being  what  the  traffic  will  bear.  At  any  given 
time  the  market  value  of  such  lands  will  be  somewhere  between 
the  two  extremes.  With  indifferent  reservoir  possibilities,  the  market 
values  will  closely  approximate  the  lower  limit ;  with  excellent  reser- 
voir sites,  when  there  are  no  alternatives,  they  will  tend  more  toward 
the  higher  limit. 

So  many  factors  are  involved  that  each  particular  reservoir  or 
system  of  reservoirs  must  needs  be  considered  separately.  This  will 
be  done  with  each  of  the  several  reservoirs  under  consideration : 

Calaveras  Reservoir:  On  December  31,  1913,  it  was,  and  had 
been  for  nearly  thirty  years,  a  matter  of  common  knowledge  that  the 
Calaveras  Reservoir  was  an  important  factor  in  the  water  supply 
situation  of  the  San  Francisco  Bay  Region.  It  had  been  brought 
before  the  public  mind  through  the  reports  of  T.  R.  Scowden,  Colonel 
Mendel,  and  others,  as  early  as  1874.  Within  a  few  years  after  the 
city  had  rejected  the  so-called  "Calaveras  Cow  Pasture"  project 
in  1877,  it  was  realized  that  a  grave  mistake  had  been  made,  and 
such  realization  has  grown  with  the  years. 

(The  last  sentence  was  objected  to  and  was  stricken  out  by  the 

1353  Master.) 

It  was  known  that  several  examinations  of  the  reservoir  site 
had  been  made,  and  that  it  had  been  found  to  be  geologically  water- 


Cory 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

tight ;  to  have  an  excellent  dam  site ;  and  to  have  a  watershed  with  a 
precipitation  insuring  a  large  runoff.  Through  the  application  by 
the  City  of  San  Francisco  for  the  so-called  Hetch  Hetchy  permit, 
the  reports  required  to  be  made  in  connection  therewith,  including 
that  of  the  so-called  Army  Board,  and  the  hearing  held  by  Secretary 
Fisher  in  November,  1912,  the  common  opinion  was  entirely  con- 
firmed that  by  the  creation  of  the  Calaveras  Reservoir  there  would 
result  a  safe  water  yield  of  at  least  40,000,000  gallons  per  day,  which 
would  be  released  into  conduits  at  an  average  elevation  exceeding 
700  feet  above  sea  level. 

(The  last  sentence  was  objected  to  by  Counsel  for  Defendant 
and  by  consent  of  Counsel  for  Plaintiff  was  permitted  to  go  out.)  1355 

On  December  31,  1913,  the  Peoples  Water  Company  on  the  East 
side  of  the  Bay  had  just  passed  through  a  very  severe  drought,  and 
by  the  narrowest  possible  margin  escaped  a  water  shortage  dis- 
astrous not  only  to  it,  but  to  all  the  East  Bay  communities.  The 
Union  Water  Company,  which  had  aspired  to  be  a  competitor  of 
the  Peoples  Water  Company,  had  just  abandoned  its  endeavors  to 
develop  enough  underground  water  along  the  eastern  bay  coast  to 
become  an  important  factor  in  the  water  situation  in  the  Bay  Cities. 
A  great  deal  of  work  had  been  done  and  plans  were  well  advanced 
for  bringing  to  a  vote  in  the  East  Bay  Cities  the  creation  of  a  Munici- 
pal Water  District.  The  requirements  of  the  Spring  Valley  Water 
Company  had  reached  its  developed  water  supply. 

In  short,  there  certainly  would  have  been  at  least  three  water 
companies  and  two  sets  of  individuals  deeply  interested  in,  and 
perhaps  even  officially  representing,  one  water  district  and  one 
municipality,  respectively,  in  active  competition  to  secure  this  source 
of  supply.  There  would  doubtless  have  also  been  one  or  more  syndi-  1356 
cates  of  shrewd  business  men,  who,  appreciating  the  situation,  would 
have  endeavored  to  secure  the  reservoir  site  with  the  expectation  of 
turning  it  over  with  a  good  profit  to  someone  of  these  five  interests. 

The  importance  of  the  Calaveras  source  of  supply  can  be  appre- 
ciated by  remembering  that  its  safe  yield  is  at  least  equal  to,  and 
doubtless  in  excess  of,  the  total  amount  of  water  then  consumed  in 
the  City  of  San  Francisco ;  considerably  in  excess  of  the  total  supply 
which  is  controlled  by  the  Peoples  Water  Company,  both  developed 
and  possible  of  development;  and  considerably  over  twice  as  much 
as  the  quantity  supplied  to  its  consumers  by  the  Peoples  Water 
Company. 

There  is  nothing  else  nearby  comparable  in  availability.  On 
the  East  side  of  the  Bay,  the  undeveloped  sources  of  the  Peoples 
Water  Company  are  far  inferior,  for  several  reasons.  They  cannot 
be  made  to  yield  half  as  much  water;  the  cost  will  be  materially 
greater  per  unit  of  capacity ;  the  elevation  of  the  points  of  delivery 
are  lower ;  and  the  watersheds  cannot  be  enough  protected  to  obviate 

387 


Cory 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

the  necessity  for  filtration.    On  the  San  Francisco  side,  the  developed 
resources  were  being  utilized  to  their  safe  limit. 

The  Calaveras  watershed  is  so  sparsely  inhabited,  and  the 
amount  and  time  of  storage  so  considerable,  that  the  Calaveras 
waters  will  be  more  satisfactory  without  the  filtration  than  either 

1357  the  developed  or  undeveloped  supplies  of  the  Peoples  Water  Com- 
pany with  filtration.    In  addition  to  this  advantage  of  the  Calaveras 
project,  there  are  several  others;  the  elevation  of  the  intake,  where 
the  water  surface  will  average  about  700  feet ;  the  earthen  dam ; 
and  so  far  as  the  East  side  is  concerned,  the  short  length  of  pipe 
line.    It  is  only  36  miles,  by  the  pipe  line  route,  to  the  Central  Reser- 
voir in  Oakland,  and  over  two-thirds  of  it  follows  closely  the  line 
of   two   railways.      The    estimated    cost    of   the    works,    delivering 
40,000,000  gallons  daily  to  Oakland  with  a  one-third  excess  pipe 
capacity,  is  only  $10,000*000,  or  but  $250,000  per  million  gallons  daily, 
and  to  San  Francisco  about  $16,000,000,   or  $400,000  per  million 
gallons  daily. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  Raker  bill,  granting  certain  rights  in 
the  Hetch  Hetchy  project,  had  just  been  signed  by  President  Wilson, 
and  in  the  minds  of  some  people  removed  the  necessity  for  developing 
the  Calaveras  source. 

1358  However,  there  are  very  onerous  conditions  imposed  upon  San 
Francisco  by  the  Raker  bill — so  onerous  that  it  is  by  no  means  cer- 
tain the  project  will  ever  be  carried  out.     Warnings  to  this  effect 
had  been  given  wide  publicity  in  September,  when  the  bill  passed 
the  House,  by  a  number  of  thoughtful  citizens,  among  others,  the 
two   most   earnest   proponents    of   the   project — ex-City   Engineers 
Grunsky  and  Manson.     Even  assuming  that  work  could  have  been 
begun  at  once,  and  vigorously  prosecuted,  it  would  have  been  so 
long  before  the  Hetch  Hetchy  supply  could  be  gotten  into  the  Bay 
Cities,  that  the  Calaveras  supply  simply  had  to  be  developed  anyway 
and  at  once.     That  this  was  fully  appreciated  is  made  obvious  by 
the  fact  that  upon  the  insistence  of  the  City  of  San  Francisco  in 
May  of  that  year,  work  had  actually  been  started  on  the  Calaveras 
dam,  has  been  continuously  prosecuted  ever  since,  and  no  one  is  more 
eager  that  this  should  continue  than  the  city  officials  of  San  Fran- 
cisco. 

It  was  also  a  matter  of  common  knowledge  that  San  Francisco 
had  a  few  years  before  paid  as  much  as  $255  per  acre  for  reservoir 
lands  away  off  in  the  Sierra  Mountains ;  that  the  Peoples  Water 
Company  valued  the  Lake  Chabot  site  at  $1250  per  acre ;  and  that 
Judge  Farrington  had  decided  the  Peninsula  reservoir  land  to  have 
the  value  of  $1000  per  acre  over  ten  years  before. 

It  was,  furthermore,  a  matter  of  common  knowledge  that  the 
development  of  this  reservoir  site  was  not  only  inevitable,  but  immi- 
nent, and  that  there  would  have  been  no  doubt  of  the  existence 

388 


Cory 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.   CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 

of  an  immediate  demand  for  the  land  for  reservoir  purposes,  either 
on  the  part  of  the  owner,  or  of  anyone  contemplating  their  pur- 
chase. 1359 

Taking  all  these  elements  into  consideration,  it  is  my  judgment 
that  the  holder  of  this  reservoir  site  could,  December  31,  1913,  have 
sold  it  for  at  least  $600,000,  and  might  well  have  obtained  a  very 
much  higher  figure.  I  do  not  think  any  prudent  owner  would  have 
opened  negotiations  for  anything  less  than  one  million  dollars,  be- 
cause even  at  the  latter  figure,  the  cost  of  the  reservoir  lands — abso- 
lutely vital  to  the  project — is  so  small  a  percentage  of  the  total  cost, 
I  do  not  think  any  prudent  executive  of  anyone  of  the  several  inter- 
ests mentioned  would  have  risked  much  parleying. 

Accordingly,  I  believe  it  is  conservative  to  say  that  the  market 
value  of  the  Calaveras  Reservoir  site  at  the  time  in  question  was  at 
least  $600,000,  and  probably  considerably  more.  Since  it  is  proposed 
to  flood  1928  acres,  this  is  equivalent  to  $311.20  per  acre.  This  is 
very  much  less  than  the  figure  at  which  it  was  possible  to  acquire  any- 
one of  the  undeveloped  reservoir  possibilities  of  the  Peoples  Water 
Company,  which  are  the  only  ones,  other  than  San  Antonio  or  Arroyo 
Valle,  existing  in  the  East  Bay  region. 

THE  SAN  ANTONIO  RESERVOIR  . 

The  San  Antonio  Reservoir  would  make  possible  a  safe  yield  of 
only  about  one-sixth  that  from  the  Calaveras  unit,  which  is  so  small, 
relative  to  the  gross  requirements  of  the  region,  that  it  may  be  many 
years  before  the  site  is  utilized.  It  may  well  be  that  it  will  never  be 
utilized.  Its  value  for  reservoir  purposes  is,  therefore,  somewhat  specu- 
lative and  remote.  Under  these  circumstances,  its  market  value  will 
be  largely  controlled  by  the  value  of  the  land  for  agricultural  pur- 
poses, and  will  not  greatly  exceed  that  value. 

It  is  certain,  however,  that  in  view  of  the  fact  that  it  is  known  to  1360 
be  a  good  reservoir  site,  and  generally  recognized  as  such,  and  is  in- 
cluded as  a  part  of  the  Freeman  Hetch  Hetchy  project,  its  market 
value  as  a  unit  was  substantially  in  excess  of  its  value  for  agricultural 
purposes.  No  owner  of  the  land  as  a  unit  would  sell  the  property  for 
a  price  which  did  not  take  into  consideration  its  availability  for  res- 
ervoir purposes,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  any  person  contemplating  its 
purchase  would  be  willing  to  pay  more  by  reason  of  this  fact. 

I  understand  that  the  lands  have  been  valued  at  between  $50,000 
and  $60,000  for  agricultural  purposes.  Under  all  the  circumstances, 
I  am  convinced  that  a  figure  exceeding  its  agricultural  value  by  at 
least  one-third,  or,  on  the  basis  of  the  property  being  worth  for  agri- 
cultural purposes  $60,000,  a  figure  of  $80,000  is  conservative,  and  that 
it  had  on  the  31st  of  December,  1913,  a  market  value  of  at  least  that 
sum. 

389 


Cory 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

ARROYO  VALLE. 

This  is  more  of  a  regulating  than  a  storage  reservoir,  and  is  even 
less  essential  to  the  urban  communities  than  San  Antonio.  On  the 
other  hand,  its  construction  would  be  an  excellent  thing  for  the  entire 
Pleasanton  Valley.  All  things  considered,  there  would  be  just  about 
the  same  excess  of  market  value  over  agricultural  value  here  as  at  San 
Antonio,  namely,  one-third.  Since  the  agricultural  value  is  about  $35,- 
000,  a  figure  of  $50,000  is  conservative,  and  it  is  my  judgment  that 
on  December  31, 1913,  its  market  value  was  at  least  that  sum. 

CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.   STEINHART. 

1361  The  fact  that  San  Francisco  a  few  years  before  paid  as  much  as 
$255  per  acre  for  lands  away  off  in  the  Sierra  Mountains  appeared,  as 
I  remember  it,  in  the  newspapers  at  the  time  of  the  purchase.    At  any 
rate  it  has  been  a  very  well  defined  piece  of  information  filed  away  in 
my  mental  catalogue.     Perhaps  we  have  a  different  definition  of  a 
matter  of  common  knowledge.     My  understanding  of  the  matter  of 
common  knowledge  is  something  which  has  been  published  in  the  news- 
papers, and  to  the  person  who  is  interested  in  that  particular  kind  of 
information.    I  do  not  remember  what  newspaper  it  was  published  in, 
but  I  discussed  it  with  engineers  numerous  times. 

In  regard  to  the  Arroyo  Valle,  it  is  not  a  reservoir  that  you  are 
going  to  draw  from  directly  so  much,  but  it  is  a  reservoir  the  purpose 
of  which  is  to  insure  the  absorption  by  the  Pleasanton  gravels  of  the 
runoff  from  the  watershed.  That  does  make  a  difference  in  my  opinion 
as  to  the  value,  because  you  are  not  actually  getting  the  water  out  of 

1362  the  reservoir  first-hand,  as  there  is  another  step  in  the  process. 

I  have  often  noticed  reservoir  sites  near  the  head  waters  of  streams, 
and  observed  the  fact  that  they  were  wonderfully  formed,  and  yet 
they  have  no  value  because  they  have  no  watershed  behind  them  to 
fill  them.  I  have  often  noted  beautiful  reservoir  sites  with  a  very 
large  watershed  behind  them,  but  it  is  in  desert  countries,  where  the 
precipitation  is  such  that  they  are  not  really  of  any  value.  In  this 
way,  such  elements  of  importance  as  sufficient  watersheds  and  pre- 
cipitation satisfactory  in  amount  and  character  makes  a  difference. 

I  do  not  remember  what  the  Union  Water  Company  paid  for 
their  reservoir  site.  The  financial  condition  of  that  company,  in  1913, 
was  unsatisfactory.  Its  operating  expenses  were  very  much  in  excess 
of  its  receipts. 

The  Peoples  "Water  Company  was  in  an  unfortunate  financial  con- 

1363  dition  in  1913.    The  creation  of  a  municipal  district  was  voted  on  in 
June,  1914,  but  the  vote  would  be  considerably  determined  by  the 
ability  to  get  water  in  and  make  scrap  value  of  the  Peoples  Water 
Company's  plant.    I  do  not  know  what  the  Peoples  Water  Company 
paid  for  its  undeveloped  reservoir  lands. 

390 


Cory 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 
RE-DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  OLNEY. 

In  my  valuations,  I  have  not  included  anything  for  water  rights 
or  for  the  structures. 

RE-CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  STEINHART. 

I  include  something  for  the  fact  that  there  is  a  watershed  in  the 
neighborhood,  for  it  is  inconceivable  that  a  reservoir  site  would  have 
any  value  as  a  collecting  and  storage  reservoir  site,  were  it  not  for  the       1364 
watershed  behind  it. 

In  valuing  Lake  Chabot  Reservoir,  I  valued  the  reservoir  land  at 
$1250,  and  the  real  estate  value  of  the  reservoir  site  itself  was  ap- 
praised, I  believe,  by  Mr.  Woodward  at  $600  an  acre.  The  outside 
lands'  rapid  decrease  in  value  is  the  reason  of  my  hesitation  as  to  the 
value  of  the  neighboring  land.  The  Temescal  Keservoir  site,  which  I 
valued  at  $2000  an  acre,  is  the  nearest  reservoir  site  of  the  Peoples 
"Water  Company  to  human  habitation.  In  valuing  it  I  valued  it  at  its 
real  estate  value.  It  had  no  additional  value  at  all,  because  its  reser- 
voir value  was  not  in  excess  of  its  urban  value,  due  to  the  fact  that 
there  were  many  other  sites  as  available  as  that.  It  has  little  value  1365 
as  a  collection  reservoir.  When  I  testified  in  regard  to  the  value  of 
Temescal  Reservoir  in  the  Peoples  Water  Company  hearing,  and  tes- 
tified as  to  its  value  not  being  in  excess  of  its  residential  value,  I 
stated  that  that  is  the  only  reason  that  is  of  importance,  because  the 
fact  remains  that  there  are  a  great  many  reservoir  possibilites  which 
cannot  be  afforded.  The  value  of  the  land  is  too  great,  and  you  cer- 
tainly could  not  afford  to  put  a  reservoir  in  that  place,  as  there  are 
other  opportunities  for  reservoir  locations  elsewhere  on  cheaper 
ground.  That  was  the  objection  of  the  Railroad  Commission  to  the 
Claremont  Reservoir.  I  do  not  know  whether  the  Railroad  Commis- 
sion put  any  value  on  the  Peoples  Water  Co.  Reservoir  in  excess  of  the 
real  estate  value. 

I  do  not  place  a  higher  valuation  than  $2000  on  the  Temescal 
Reservoir,  because  the  real  estate  valuation  is  so  great  that  if  that 
reservoir  were  to  be  built  again,  it  would  not  be  built  there.  It  would  1366 
be  built  on  other  lands  that  are  cheaper  which  would  serve  the  pur- 
pose. I  don't  know  that  I  could  tell  you  exactly  where  I  would  put 
the  Temescal  Reservoir,  but  there  are  numerous  places  over  on  the 
hills  of  Berkeley  where  reservoirs  may  be  placed.  As  a  collection  res- 
ervoir, you  could  not  find  a  location  where  you  could  put  another  reser- 
voir to  take  its  place,  but  as  a  distribution  reservoir,  there  are  a  great 
many  places.  It  is  at  the  present  time  a  collection  reservoir,  collecting 
the  small  amount  of  300,000  gallons  a  day,  really  negligible  in 
quantity.  I  should  say  that  within  a  distance  of  three  miles  north  and 
three  miles  south  you  would  probably  find  five  reservoir  sites  that 
might  be  substituted  for  Temescal  in  holding  that  total  quantity  of 

391 


Cory 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

water,  and  probably  be  equally  as  good  for  further  designing  of  the 
1367       system.     I  don't  know  that  there  are  reservoir  sites  of  similar  type 

1369  as  the  Temescal  Eeservoir.    There  probably  are  not. 

Mr.  Olney,  of  Counsel  for  Plaintiff,  read  the  following  statement : 
In  1907,  Josephine  O.  Phelps  was  the  owner  of  a  large  tract  of 
land  in  San  Mateo  County,  which  included  a  portion  of  the  Crystal 
Springs  watershed.  She  contracted  to  sell  it  to  one,  John  Partridge. 
On  June  10,  1907,  Partridge  leased  to  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Com- 
pany the  portion  of  the  tract  within  the  Crystal  Springs  watershed, 
the  land  being  described  as  800  acres,  more  or  less,  and  extending  up 
to  the  summit  of  the  hills,  so  as  to  embrace  all  of  the  tract  within  the 
watershed.  I  have  got  the  original  papers  for  that.  The  term  of  the 
lease  was  seven  years,  and  the  rent  therefore  was  $5,000  a  year,  the 
water  company  paying  the  taxes.  The  lease  also  provided  that  the 
water  company  should  deliver  to  Partridge  on  the  lands  outside  of  the 
watershed,  which  he  had  under  contract  from  Mrs.  Phelps,  100.000 
gallons  of  water  daily  at  the  price  of  15  cents  per  thousand  gallons. 
The  lease  further  provided  that  at  its  expiration  Partridge  should 
convey  the  leased  land  to  the  water  company  without  further  payment 
other  than  the  payment  of  $5,000  per  year  perpetually,  and  the  con- 

1370  tinued  delivery  of  100,000  gallons  of  water  daily  at  the  price  of  15 
cents  per  thousand  gallons.    The  lease  also  provided  that  at  any  time 
after  the  conveyance  of  the  land,  the  water  company  must  pay  $100,- 
000  and  relieve  itself  of  the  $5,000  annual  payment.    At  the  same  time 
as  the  making  of  the  lease  by  Partridge,  the  water  company  made  an 
agreement  with  Mrs.  Phelps,  the  owner  of  the  land,  whereby  she 
agreed,  in  effect,  that  in  case  Partridge  failed  to  perform  his  contract 
of  purchase  from  her  so  that  the  land  came  back  to  her,  she  would 
lease  the  land  to  the  water  company  upon  the  same  terms  as  those  of 
the  lease  by  Partridge,  the  term  of  the  lease  to  be  for  45  years.    By 
this  agreement  with  Mrs.  Phelps,  Mrs.  Phelps  further  agreed  to  con- 
vey the  land  to  the  water  company  at  any  time  upon  the  payment  of 
$100,000.    Partridge  failed  to  complete  his  contract  with  Mrs.  Phelps, 
and  on  June  10,  1914,  his  rights  ended.     In  the  meantime,  the  land 
had  been  surveyed,  and  it  had  been  ascertained  that  there  was,  in  fact, 
some  969  acres  in  the  watershed  instead  of  about  800  acres,  as  sup- 
posed.    Mrs.  Phelps  has  now  brought  suit,  which  is  now  pending, 
seeking  to  have  it  judicially  determined  that  her  agreement  covers 
800  acres  only.    I  have  looked  these  matters  up ;  that  is  the  situation, 
if  there  is  anything  incorrect  about  that,  you  can  state  it. 

(It  was  stipulated  that  the  statement  should  be  accepted  for  the 
present,  and  if  Counsel  for  the  Defendant  finds  anything  wrong  with 
it  he  can  correct  it.) 


Burgin 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OP  SAN  FRANCISCO 


TWENTY-SECOND  HEARING.       AUGUST  18,  1915. 
Witnesses :    J.  F.  BURGIN  and  H.  T.  CORY. 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  OLNEY.  1371 

I  am  a  resident  of  San  Francisco,  and  have  been  since  1907.     I 
was,  and  am  acquainted  with  Elmer  E.  Smith,  who  owned  certain 
lands  on  the  floor  of  Hetch  Hetchy  Valley,  and  also  outside  the  valley 
in  the  same  vicinity.    He  sold  those  lands  to  the  City  and  County  of       1372 
San  Francisco. 

(It  is  understood  that  the  objection  of  Counsel  for  Defendant       1373 
goes  to  all  this  line  of  testimony.) 

The  purchase  price  of  the  land  was  $150,000,  plus  6%  interest 
on  deferred  payments.     I  negotiated  the  sale  of  the  property  myself,       1374 
as  agent  for  Mr.  Smith. 

Questioned  by  Master. 

I  negotiated  with  Mr.  Phelan,  Mr.  Manson,  and  the  Mayor  of  the 
City  of  San  Francisco,  Mr.  E.  R.  Taylor.  I  was  a  party  to  all  the 
proceedings  at  that  time,  after  bringing  Mr.  Smith  and  Mr.  Manson, 
the  City  Engineer,  and  Mr.  Phelan,  a  citizen,  and  the  Mayor  together. 

DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  OLNEY. 

Mr.  Phelan  acted  as  a  citizen  of  San  Francisco,  I  suppose,  toward 
acquiring  the  Hetch  Hetchy  land  for  the  city.     The  meetings  were 
held  at  his  office,  and  he  was  a  party  to  arranging  the  first  payment 
of  $10,000.    What  other  part  he  took  in  it  I  could  not  tell.    He  had     ,  1375 
been  Mayor  of  the  city,  and  I  suppose,  had  been  personally  very  much 
interested  in  the  city  acquiring  water  from  Hetch  Hetchy.     The  first 
negotiations  I  had  regarding  the  property  were  with  Mr.  Manson,  the 
City  Engineer.    In  the  beginning  I  made  a  verbal  offer  of  the  property 
to  the  city  for  $175,000.     There  was  an  offer  made  in  writing,  upon       1376 
the  basis  of  which  the  lands  were  finally  purchased. 

The  transaction  for  the  purchase  of  these  lands  was  finally  con- 
sumated  upon  the  basis  which  is  set  out  in  this  writing  which  I  have 
here,  according  to  my  recollection. 

(Discussion  between  Counsel  and  the  Master  upon  the  question  1376-1379 
of  whether  this  line  of  testimony  is  or  is  not  properly  admissable  as 
evidence.    The  objection  of  Counsel  for  Defendant  was  overruled.) 

The  following  was  read  into  the  record:  "Oakland,  California, 
September  3,  1907.  Mr.  Marsden  Manson,  San  Francisco,  California. 
My  Dear  Sir  :— 

"As  you  are  representing  San  Francisco,  and  in  compliance  with 
your  request,  I  make  the  following  alternative  propositions  of  sale  of 
patented  lands  owned  by  me  in  Yosemite  National  Park.  First,  I  offer 

393 


Burgin 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO 

560  acres,  more  or  less,  in  and  adjacent  to  the  floor  of  Hetch  Hetchy 
Valley  at  the  price  of  $125,000,  of  which  $20,000  is  to  be  paid  upon  the 

1380  acceptance  of  this  proposition  by  or  on  behalf  of  the  city  of  San  Fran- 
cisco, and  the  remainder  in  three  years  at  6%  on  deferred  payments. 

"Second,  I  offer  812  and  14/100  acres,  more  or  less,  in  five  sepa- 
rate tracts,  one  of  which  includes  the  tract  included  in  the  above  offer. 
The  others  are  in  Tilltill  Valley,  160  acres,  more  or  less.  Hog  Ranch, 
322  46/100  acres,  more  or  less ;  Canyon  Ranch,  160  acres,  more  or  less ; 
Middle  Fork  Homestead,  163  68/100  acres,  more  or  less,  for  the  sum 
of  $150,000,  of  which  $25,000  is  to  be  paid  in  cash  upon  the  acceptance 
of  this  offer  by  or  on  behalf  of  the  City  and  County  of  San  Francisco 
and  the  remainder  upon  the  terms  mentioned  under  this  first  offer. 
The  offers  will  remain  open  until  October  1,  1907.  Yours  very  truly." 
Signed,  "Elmer  E.  Smith." 

The  following  portion  of  the  agreement  of  sale  was  read  into  the 
record : 

"MEMORANDUM  OF  AGREEMENT. 

"This  agreement,  made  and  entered  into  this  14th  day  of  Decem- 
ber, 1908,  by  and  between  Elmer  E.  Smith  of  the  County  of  Merced, 
State  of  California,  party  of  the  first  part,  and  the  City  and  County 
of  San  Francisco,  a  municipal  corporation,  the  party  of  the  second 
part. 

' '  Witnesseth :  Whereas,  said  party  of  the  first  part  is  the  owner, 
through  title  derived  by  a  patent  from  the  United  States,  of  all  those 
certain  lands  situated  in  the  Yosemite  National  Park,  Tuolumne 
County,  California,  described  as  follows : 

"First:  Those  certain  lands  situate,  lying  and  being  in  and  ad- 
joining the  floor  of  the  Hetch  Hetchy  Valley,  particularly  described 
as  follows:" 

(Here  follows  description.) 

1381  ' '  Containing  in  the  aggregate  560  acres,  more  or  less.    Said  lands 
are  hereinafter  referred  to  as  'inside  lands'. 

"Second:  Those  certain  lands  situated  within  said  Yosemite 
National  Park,  and  adjacent  reserves  outside  of  and  beyond  the  floor 
of  said  Hetch  Hetchy  Valley,  particularly  described  as  follows:" 

(Here  follows  a  particular  description.) 

"Containing  in  the  aggregate  762  acres.  Said  lands  last  described 
are  hereinafter  referred  to  as  'outside  lands'  ". 

Then  the  price  is  fixed  by  the  contract  at  $150,800. 

(Counsel  for  Defendant  is  willing  to  waive  any  objection  to  the 
testimony  of  Mr.  Grunsky  and  Mr.  Cory,  so  far  as  such  objection  might 
be  based  upon  the  fact  that  portions  of  their  testimony  had  gone  in  by 
way  of  their  reading  from  a  written  report,  instead  of  by  question  and 
answer.) 

394 


Cory 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  CO.  VS.  CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO' 

Witness:    HARBY  T.  CORY.  1383 

RE-CALLED    FOR   FURTHER    CROSS   EXAMINATION. 

I  have  no  satisfactory  knowledge  of  the  figures  paid  by  the  Peo- 
ples Water  Company  for  its  undeveloped  reservoir  sites,  either  as  a 
whole  or  in  separate  pieces. 

RE-DIRECT    EXAMINATION    BY    MR.    OLNEY. 

Q.  Were  you  not  acquainted  with  the  values  which  were  placed 
upon  the  lands  in  the  reservoirs  at  and  about  1913? 

(Objected  to,  and  objection  sustained.) 

(Statements  by  Counsel  as  to  the  nature  of  the  evidence  which  1384-1387 
they  intend  to  introduce  as  following  this.) 

Mr.  Olney:  By  the  way,  your  Honor,  so  that  you  may  be  in- 
formed as  to  the  result  of  this  instrument  that  was  put  in  this  morn- 
ing, those  prices  figure  out  $223  an  acre  approximately  for  the  reser- 
voir land  of  Hetch  Hetchy,  and  $33  an  acre  for  the  outside  lands. 


395 


INDEX 


INDEX 


Eecord     Abstract 

ABBEY  HOMESTEAD  LOTS 380  113 

Value  of 592  169 

AGEEEMENTS 

By  Steinhart  in  re  misspelled  word  ' '  Schween  " 789  228 

By  Steinhart  in  re  terms  of  Phelps  Tract  lease 1370  392 

Dockweiler  agrees  to  San  Francisco  rainfall  records 72  16 

Dockweiler  agrees  to  monthly  and  daily  consumption 126  31 

Dockweiler  agrees  to  district  consumption 127  32 

Dockweiler    checks    measurements    of   water   from   various 

sources     132  33 

In  re  rainfall  discussed  by  Steinhart 103 

Eansom    agrees    to    pipe    inventory    in    city    distribution 

system    Ill  26 

Eeynolds  and  Wenzelberger  within  $9003  on  general  new 

construction  charges 174  46 

Smith 's  land  in  Hetch-Hetchy,  sale  of 1379  393 

Steinhart  re  percent  reduction  of  peninsula  land  values. . . .  1188  328 

Value  of  real  estate  agreed  to  by  City 298  89 

As  to  value  of  San  Francisco  land,  further  discussion 1191  329 

ALAMEDA     AND     SANTA     CLAEA     LANDS  — value     of 

(Schween)     789  229    ' 

ALAMEDA  CONDUIT 

Capacity  of   94  21 

95  22 

Description  of  20-22  5 

ALAMEDA  COUNTY  LANDS— segregated  by  Gale 689  202 

ALAMEDA  CEEEK— draft  from 128  32 

ALAMEDA  CEEEK  PEOPEETIES— 

Adaptability    826  239 

Beard  Tract,  located 272  80 

Description  (Gale)    697  204 

Detail  description  of  parcels  (Schween)   824  239 

Detail  of  valuation  (Gale)    628  180 , 

633  182 

Detail  of  valuation  (Schween) 824  239 

Factors  of  valuation  (Schween) 837  242 

Near  Sunol,  Gale  familiar  with 633  182 

Overacker  tract  located 271  80 

Stream  bed  deducted  from  appraised  acreage 842  244 

857  248 

879  253 

Structures  not  included  in  value 630  181 

824  239 

Valued  and  not  valued  by  Gale 627  180 

ALAMEDA  CEEEK  WATEESHED— area  of 61  14 

iii 


INDEX 

Eecord     Abstract 
ALAMEDA  LANDS — price  paid  by  Spring  Valley  Water  Co. 

not  included  in  valuation  (Gale)   695  203 

692  202 

Water  values  not  considered  (Schween)    828  240 

ALAMEDA  PIPE  LINE— capacity  of,  increased 87  20 

ALAMEDA  EUN-OFF— distribution  of 56  13 

ALAMEDA  SUGAE  COMPANY— land  purchased  from 709  207 

ALAMEDA  WATEESHEDS— method  of  determining  areas...  53  12 
ALFALFA 

Can  be  raised  in  Calaveras  VaUey 1042  295 

Cost  of  harvesting   892  257 

Cost  of  planting 892  257 

Experiments  with  at  Pleasanton 794  230 

Grown  on  Calaveras  lands 1083  305 

Number  of  crops  produced  on  Pleasanton  lands 792  229 

Price  of  at  Pleasanton 896  257 

Sub-irrigation    885  255 

889  256 

ALVISO  PEOPEETY— location  of 273  81 

AMES — Former  Secretary  Spring  Valley  Water  Works  re  stocks 

and  bonds 184  48 

AEEAS 

Acreage  of  Arroyo  Valle  Eeservoir 688  201 

Acreage  of  Calaveras  Eeservoir 685  200 

686  201 

1209  334 

Calaveras  Watershed 64  15 

Crystal  Springs  reservoir  water  surface,  present 91  21 

Lake  Merced  acreage 294  88 

Of  bottom  land,  Calaveras  Valley 1010  287 

Peninsula  reservoirs 91  21 

1770  acres  in  error  for  300'  elevation  at  Crystal  Springs 

Eeservoir    70  15 

AEEAS  AND  CAPACITIES— of  Spring  Valley  Water  Co.'s 

reservoirs  (Table)   1249  361 

AEMITAGE  OEPHANAGE— Borel  purchase  price 1168  325 

AEEOYO  VALLE 

Proposed  dam-site 75  17 

Eun-off    82  18 

Un-surveyed  sections    877  253 

AEEOYO  VALLE  LANDS 

Acreage   (Schween)    810  235 

Adaptability    648  188 

875  253 

Average  value  per  acre  (Schween) 810  235 

Detail  of  valuation  (Gale) 648  188 

Detail  of  valuation  (Schween) 773  225 

Factors  of  value  (Schween) 831  241 

846  245 

iv 


INDEX 

Becord     Abstract 
AEROYO  VALLE  LANDS— Continued. 

Rentals    872  252 

Total  value   (Schween) 810  235 

Water  production  not  considered  in  value   (Gale) 649  188 

ARROYO   VALLE   AND   SAN   ANTONIO   RESERVOIRS— 

Value  25%  in  excess  of  farming  value  (Grunsky) 1235  351 

ARROYO  VALLE  RESERVOIR 

Acreage  688  201 

Elevation  of 36  9 

Uses  of  1234  350 

1361  390 

ARROYO  VALLE  RESERVOIR  LANDS 

Average  value  per  acre   (Gale) 688  201 

Total  value  of  (Gale) 688  201 

Value  of  (Cory) 1360  390 

ARROYO  VALLE  WATERSHED 

Acreage  owned  by  Spring  Valley  Water  Co 277  82 

Described    65  15 

ASSESSED    VALUE    OF    LANDS— extent    used,    in    valuing 

reservoirs    1301  375 

In  four  bay  counties   1218  340 

ASSESSED  VALUE  OF  REAL  ESTATE 

Compared  with  growth  of  population  (Table) 1244  358 

In  California  (Table) 1252  362 

In  San  Mateo  County  (Table) 1254  363 

San  Francisco  County 1312  377 

South  San  Francisco  Bay  Counties  (Table) 1243  357 

ASSESSMENTS 

Returns  by  Win.  M.  Parks  to  Assessor 1117  312 

1130  314 

San  Francisco  City  Water  Works  stock 235  67 

239  68 

240  68 

200  55 

202  55 

204  56 

207  57 

212  59 

233  66 

Spring  Valley  Water  Works  stock 220  62 

222  63 

228  65 

229  65 

230  66 

235  67 

239  68 

240  68 

270  79 


INDEX 


Kecord     Abstract 
ASSESSED    VALUE    OF    ALL    PEOPERTY— in    California 

(Table)     1253  363 

AUTOMOBILES — effect  on  value  of  property  away  from  rail- 
roads      1172  326 

BADEN  LOTS— value  of  (Baldwin) 378  112 

(Hoag) 592  169 

BADEN  MEECED  EIGHTS  OF  WAY 

Basis  of  value  (Baldwin) 450  131 

490  140 

Original  cost   (Baldwin) 399  120 

Valuation  of   (Baldwin)      386  115 

BADEN  PIPE  LINE— See  San  Andres  Pipe  line. 

BADEN  PEOPEETIES— rentals   410  124 

448  131 

BADEN  EIGHTS  OF  WAY— value  of  (Baldwin) 402  122 

BALBOA  TEEEACE — negotiations  for  purchase  of 555  156 

BALDWIN,  A.  S. 

Basis  of  former  Lake  Merced  valuation 340  99 

Direct  examination    295-406  89-123 

412  124 

Cross-examination  406-488  123-140 

Ee-direct  examination   488-537  140-152 

553  155 

557  157 

1186-1194  328-330 

1204  332 

Ee-cross  examination  538-553  152-155 

558-559  157 

. . .  .' 1194-1204  330-332 

Experience  in  valuing  rights  of  way 450  131 

General  methods  of  valuation 468  134 

Examination  of  peninsula  watershed  lands 442  129 

Miscellaneous  sales  in  San  Francisco 554  155 

Miscellaneous  sales  in  San  Mateo  County 502  143 

504  144 

545  153 

549  154 

551  155 

Total  acreage  sold  by,  in  San  Mateo  County 1194  330 

Total  sales  by,  in  San  Mateo  County 1194  330 

Qualifications   295  89 

320  96 

415  125 

Valuation  does  not  include  structures 297  89 

BAELEY 

Average  yield  per  acre 888  256 

Price   of    1038  294 

Price  of  seed 1137  316 

Production  of  on  Weller  Tract 1038  294 

vi 


INDEX 

Eeeord  Abstract 

B ARTEL— letter  in  re  Alameda  Hydrography 290  87 

BEAED  TRACT 

Location  of    272  80 

Original  cost 907  260 

BEETS 

Amount  produced  at  Pleasanton 805  233 

Cost  of  raising 942  271 

Price   of    942  271 

Price  of  at  Pleasanton 805  233 

Production  of  in  Calaveras  Valley 915  263 

Production  per  acre  in  Calaveras  Valley 942  271 

Quantity  raised  per  acre 1013  288 

BEHAN  LAND— near  Sunol  Par.  244 757  220 

BELMONT  LAND— value  of  (Baldwin) 382  114 

(Hoag) 593  170 

BELMONT  PUMP  AGE— amount  daily  in  1913 106  25 

BELMONT  PUMPS— duty  of 20  5 

BELMONT    RAVENSWOOD   RIGHTS    OF    WAY— value    of 

(Baldwin)     400  121 

BELMONT  RESERVOIR   (proposed  Hetch-Hetehy) 

Capacity  of    1340  383 

Compared  with  Spring  Valley  Water  Co.'s  peninsula  res- 
ervoirs      1336  382 

Elevation   of    1336  382 

Proposed  uses  of 1335  381 

BELMONT   RESERVOIR   SITE    (proposed   Hetch-Hetchy)  — 

compared  with  peninsula  reservoirs 1330  380 

BASSETTI  TO  HOWELL— sale  of  land 1200  331 

BLACK  POINT  PUMPS— duty  of 26  6 

BLACOW  LAND— factors  of  value— Par.  281 732  213 

BOILERS— rated  horse  power,  etc 135  34 

BOLINGER  PLACE— detail  of  value   (Parks) 1127  314 

BONDS 

Calaveras    186  49 

Calaveras  exchange   183  48 

For  Crystal  Springs  reservoir 189  50 

Exchange  of 162  44 

163  44 

For  purchase  of  Clear  Lake  Water  Co 168  45 

179  46 

Interest  rate  on 185  48 

186  49 

194  52 

256  75 

Issued  in  payment  for  property  in  Calaveras  and  on  Ala- 
meda Creek    161  43 

Issued  in  payment  property  Lake  Merced 158  42 

Premium    on    190  51 

vii 


INDEX 

Eeeord  Abstract 
BOND  HOLDERS— amount  paid  in  by,  "Plaintiff's  Exhibit 

12bb"   146  38 

BOND  ISSUES 

For  different  years  Spring  Valley  Water  Works 149  39 

151  40 

256  75 

Prior  to  1867  S.  V.  W.  Works 179  46 

Spring  Valley  Water  Works 179  46 

180  47 

183  48 

192  52 

197  53 

198  54 

217  61 

BONESTELL  TO  BARNESON— sale  of  land 1198  330 

BONETTI  RANCH— price   of 945  272 

954  275 

BOREL — Price  of  Armitage  Orphanage 1168  325 

BOREL  TO  JANES— sale  of  land 1200  331 

BOSTWICK    SALE— acreage   and   price 1203  332 

BOSTWICK  TRACT— San   Mateo   County 557  157 

BRICKELL  TRACT— described   522  148 

BRIGHTSIDE  WEIRS— description  and  location  of 57  13 

BURGIN,  J.  F. 

Connection  with  Hetch-Hetchy  land  purchase 1374  393 

Direct  examination   1371-1381  393-394 

Qualifications   1371  393 

1374  393 

CALAVERAS 

Bonds    186  49 

Cost  of  developing 1357  388 

CALAVERAS  CREEK  LANDS— Detail  of  valuation  (Gale)  . .  656  191 

CALAVERAS   DAM— elevation   of 283  84 

CALAVERAS    GAGINGS— made    in    conjunction    with    City 

engineering  department  81  18 

CALAVERAS  LANDS 

Adaptability    927  266 

931  268 

1040  295 

Castle  lands  described 936  270 

Condition  of  corn  crop 1073  303 

Condition  of  prune  orchard 1071  302 

Detail  of  cost 1282  370 

Detail  description  (Parks) 1033  293 

Detail  of  valuation  (Clayton) 919  264 

Detail  of  valuation  (Gale) 659  192 

664  193 

Detail  of  valuation   (Parks) 1072  302 

1075  303 

Detail  value  of  Bolinger  place  (Parks) 1127  314 

viii 


INDEX 

Kecord  Abstract 
CALAVEBAS  LANDS— Continued. 

Elevation  of,  Par.  H.  268 671  196 

Factors   of  value    (Gale) 740  215 

Factors  of  value  (Clayton) 926  266 

931  268 

1000  285 

Improvements  not  included  in  value  (Clayton) 952  274 

Irrigation   possible 1027  291 

Location  of  prune  orchard 1071  302 

Number  of  acres  required  to  feed  a  cow 1081  304 

Original  cost  of 962  277 

Past  uses 1098  308 

1121  312 

Persons  living  on  in  1911 1026  291 

Kate  of  interest  paid  to  cattle  raisers 1086  306 

Eental  of    1093  307 

1094  307 

Keservoir  areas  not  considered  as  extra  value  (Gale) 685  201 

Total  value  not  figured  by  Parks 1085  306 

Value   of    (Parks) 1034  293 

Valueable  as  cow  ranch 1080  304 

Value  of  Eoderick  place   (Parks) 1121  312 

Vegetables  raised  by  Parks 1075  303 

Water  producing  purposes  not  valued   (Parks) 1080  304 

CALAVERAS  RESERVOIR 

Acreage  of   685  200 

686  201 

Adaptability    of  site 1353  386 

Area  of 1209  334 

Average  value  per  acre    (Gale) 686  201 

Capacity  of    1233  349 

Description  of  site  (Grunsky) 1232  348 

Elevation   of    36  8 

283  84 

Future   storage    91  21 

Necessity  of  development 1284  371 

Suitable   for    reservoir   purposes 1278  369 

Total  value  of  lands  (Gale) 686  201 

Total  value  of  site  (Grunsky) 1236  351 

Value  as  of  1913  not  the  value  at  present  time  (Grunsky) . .  1233  349 

Value  of  (Cory) 1359  389 

Value  of  land  (Grunsky) 1315  377 

Value   per   acre    (Grunsky) 1234  350 

Yield  in  excess-  of  present  demands 1290  l     372 

Yield  of 1290  372 

1353  386 

1356  387 

Yield  per  day 1234  350 

CALAVERAS     RESERVOIR     LANDS  —  factors     of     value 

(Grunsky)     1286  371 

ix 


INDEX 

Becord     Abstract 

CALAVERAS   EUN-OFF— method  of   measuring 79               18 

CALAVERAS  VALLEY 

Adaptability    913  263 

915  263 

Alfalfa  has  been  grown  on 1083  305 

Area  of  bottom  land 1010  287 

Beet   production    915  263 

Bottom  lands   985  282 

Bottom  land,  boundaries  of 986  283 

Can  be  drained  at  small  expense 1029  292 

Character   of   soil 1040  295 

Depth  of  water  plane 1031  292 

Described 911  262 

Elevation   of    987  283 

Hay   crops    1102  309 

Location  of  orchards 924  266 

Potatoes  grown  on  Wells  Ranch 1107  310 

School  houses  in 1027  291 

Subterranean  water    1007  287 

CALAVERAS  WATERSHED— area  of 65               15 

CALLAMOOR  TRACT— cost  of 554  155 

CALLEN  TRACT— value  of 850  246 

CAPACITIES  AND  AREAS— of  Spring  Valley  Water  Co.'s 

reservoirs 1249  361 

CAPACITIES 

Alameda  conduit  94              21 

95               22 

Of  Calaveras  reservoir 1233  349 

Crystal  Springs  conduit 98               23 

Crystal  Springs  reservoir 17                 4 

Lake  Merced  reservoir 100              24 

Method  of  computing,  in  conduits 96               22 

Of  Alameda  pipe  line  increased 86              20 

Of  Calaveras  reservoir  1234  350 

Of  conduit  from  San  Andres  reservoir 95               22 

99               23 

Of  Crystal  Springs  reservoir  present  and  proposed 1228  346 

Of  line  to  College  Hill  reservoir 99               23 

.    Of  pumps   (Spring  Valley  Water  Co.) 102              24 

105-107  24-25- 

Of  reservoirs   figured   from   actual   surveys 76-77              17 

84               19 

Of  peninsula  reservoir 1248  360 

Of  San  Miguel  reservoir 1328  380 

Of  Temescal  reservoir 1366  391 

Pilarcitos  and  San  Andres  conduit 96               22 

San  Andrea  44  inch  pipe 97               22 

Method  of  determining 99               23 

Of  Belmont   reservoir    (proposed   Hetch-Hetchy) 1340  383. 


INDEX 

Eecord     Abstract 

CAPACITY  TABLES — for  reservoirs,  how  made 84  19 

CAKMANY  TO  BOEEL— sale  of  land 1199  331 

CAROLAN  LAND 

Description  of   1194  329 

Price  of 471  135 

1166  324 

CAEOLAN  TO  IRWIN— sale  of  land 1201  331 

CAESON — Calaveras  cattleman 1004  286" 

CASTLE,  I.  N. — Eented  Malarin  ranch 1110  3ia 

CASTLE  LANDS 

Description  of  (Clayton) ' .  .  936  270 

Price  paid  by  Spring  Valley  Water  Co 1110  310 

Value  of  (Baldwin)  379  115 

Value  of   (Hoag)    592  169 

CATTLE 

Feed  for  on  the  ridges  of  Calaveras  lands 1000  285 

Natural  average  increase  3l/2% 1120  312 

Not  taken  outside  of  Calaveras  to  feed 1095  307 

Number  pastured  by  W.  W.  Parks 1117  312 

Number  sold  by  Parks 1093  307 

On  Calaveras  lands  look  good 1029  292; 

Profit  off  one  steer  per  year 1134 

CATTLE  LANDS — in  demand  in  Santa  Clara  County 943  272. 

CHABOT  TEACT 

Adaptability  of  806  233 

Drainage  of   870  251 

Original  cost 712  207 

Purchase  price  less  than  real  value  (Gale) 749  218 

Value  of  (Mortimer) 906  260 

CHINESE  CEMETEEY  LOTS— Location  of 274  81 

CITATIONS 

In  re  speculative  value  of  land 330  98 

Minnesota  rate  case 1321  379 

The  Boom  case 1322  379 

CITY  ENGINEER 

Agreement  in  re  run-off,  stream  gagings,  etc 82 

Checked  rating  curves  for  Alameda  streams 58  1& 

CITY  OFFICIALS — Statements  made  by  in  re  Spring  Valley 

Water  Co.  's  reservoirs 1325  379 

CITY  PUMPS— duty  of 16  3 

CITY  EESERVOIES— elevations  of 16  3 

CITY  OF  SAN  FEANCISCO— agrees  to  value  of  real  estate...  298  89 

CLAFFEY  TO  BURGIN— sale  of  land 1199  331 

CLAEENDON  HEIGHTS  PUMPS— duty  of 26  & 

CLAEENDON  HEIGHTS  TANK— elevation  of 26  6 

CLAY  ST.  TANK— elevation  of 25  6 

xi 


INDEX 

Eecord     Abstract 
CLAYTON,  W.  S. 

Calaveras  land  visited  by 979  281 

Direct   examination    908-961  261-277 

Cross  examination 961-1020  277-289 

Be-direct  examination 1021-1030  289-292 

Ee-cross  examination 1030-1032        292 

Qualifications   908  261 

CLEAE  LAKE  WATEE  CO.— bond  issue  for  purchase  of 168  45 

179  46 

CLIMATE — Santa  Clara  Valley 925  266 

COLEMAN  LAND — purchased  for  Spring  Valley  Water  Co.  . .  1196  330 

COLLEGE  HILL  EESEEVOIE 

Capacity  of  line  to 99  23 

Elevation  of 15  3 

25  6 

127  32 

COLOMBAT  ESTATE — price  of  lands 970  279 

COLUSA  PEUNES— price  of 978  281 

CONDUITS — Lake  Merced  description  of  (Sharon) 14  2 

Method  of  computing  capacity  in 96  22 

San  Andres,  description  of  (Sharon) 15  3 

CONSOLIDATION — San    Francisco    City    Water    Works    and 

Spring  Valley  Water  Works  1865 243  70 

CONSUMPTION  OF  WATEE 

Dockweiler  agrees  to  district  127  32 

Dockweiler  agrees  to  daily  and  monthly 126  31 

Eecords  include  leakage   126  31 

COEN  CEOP 

Condition  of,  Calaveras  1073  303 

COEEECTIONS 

In  Clayton 's  table  of  values  960  277 

In  inventory    997  285 

In  table  1  Grunsky  memorandum  1293  373 

In  table  4  Grunsky  memorandum  1293  373 

In  table  10  Grunsky  memorandum  1293  373 

In  testimony  A.  S.  Baldwin 438  129 

512  146 

In  testimony  W.  S.  Clayton 921  265 

954  275 

999  285 

In  testimony  C.  A.  Gale  663  193 

730  212 

In  testimony  C.  E.  Grunsky 1294 

In  testimony  W.  E.  Hoag 605  172 

In  testimony  C.  H.  Schween 788  228 

In  testimony  J.  J.  Sharon  103  24 

269  79 

In  statement  by  Steinhart  re  Calaveras  prunes 1131  315 

xii 


INDEX 


CORRECTIONS— Continued.  Kecord  Abstraet 

In  statement  re  Reynolds '  Exhibit  104 242  69 

262  77 

In  value  Parcel  225  Calaveras  lands 960  277 

CORY,  H.  T. 

Direct   examination    1345-1360  384-389 

Cross  examination 1360-1363  389-391 

Re-Direct  examination 1363-1383  391-395 

Re-Cross   examination    1363-1383  391-395 

Qualifications  1346  384 

COST 

Of  developing  Calaveras  water  supply 1357  388 

Of  pumping  plants  in  Santa  Clara  Valley 929  267 

Of  raising  and  bailing  hay 1136  316 

COST  OF  LAND 

As  an  index  of  value 1224  343 

Of  Baden-Merced  rights  of  way  399  120 

Of  Calaveras  lands    962  277 

Purchased  by  Gale  near  Pleasanton 761  221 

Ravenswood  rights  of  way  459  132 

South  end  Crystal  Springs  Reservoir  505  144 

COST  OF  RESERVOIR  LANDS 

Crystal  Springs  1214  337 

Detail  cost  of  Pilarcitos  reservoir  lands 1217  339 

Peninsula  System,  table   1238  352 

1241  355 

Reservoir  lands   1213  336 

San  Andres    1216  338 

COYOTE  LANDS— location  of 275  81 

COYOTE  STATION  LANDS— compared  to  Calaveras  Valley. .  914  263 

CROCKER  AND  DILLON  LANDS— leased  by  Parka 1088  306 

1091  307 

CRYSTAL  SPRINGS  CONDUIT— capacity  of 98  23 

CRYSTAL  SPRINGS  DAM 

Built  with  extra  heavy  foundations   74  16 

Elevation   of    74  16 

CRYSTAL  SPRINGS  PIPE  LINE 

Description  of   17  4 

Value  of  rights  of  way 403  122 

CRYSTAL  SPRINGS  PUMPS— duty  of 19  4 

CRYSTAL  SPRINGS  RESERVOIR 

Area  of 1209  334 

1213  336 

Area  of  water  surface 17  4 

91  21 

Capacity  of   17  4 

Capacity,  present  and  proposed 1228  346 

Elevation   of    17  4 

74  16 

Extract  from  Minute  "Book  D"  re  bond  issues 188  50 

xiii 


INDEX 

Record  Abstract 
CRYSTAL  SPRINGS  RESERVOIR  LANDS 

Character  of  lands 1274  368 

Cost  of  (table)  1238  352 

Date  of  purchase   1214  337 

Detail  of  cost  (Grunsky)   1273  368 

Detail  and  cost  of  separate  parcels  (Grunsky)   1214  337 

CRYSTAL  SPRINGS  WATERSHED— area  of 17  4 

CULLEN  PLACE— description  of 747-748  217 

DALY  HILL  LAND— value  of  (Hoag) 591  169 

DAMS — Crystal  Springs  built  with  extra  heavy  foundations.  . .  74  16 

DAM  SITE  PROPOSED— Arroyo  Valle 75  17 

San  Antonio 75  17 

DEATH  RATE — in  San  Francisco  from  typhoid 1318  378 

DE  SAISSETT  LAND 

Factors  of  value   (Schween) 840  243 

Segregation  of 758  220 

DIAMOND  TRACT  LOTS— Value  of  (Baldwin) 381  113 

DINGEE  TO  PISSISS— Sale  of  land 1199  331 

DISTRIBUTION  SYSTEM 

Pavement  map    29-30  7 

Pipe  inventory  agreed  to  by  Ransom Ill  26 

Ransom  agrees  to  length  and  age  of  pipes Ill  26 

Sub-soil  map   30-31  7 

Traffic  map  33  7 

DIVIDENDS— Data  obtained  from 258  76 

DOCKWEILER 

Agrees  to  district  consumption   127  32 

Agrees  to  monthly  and  daily  consumption 126  31 

Agrees  to  San  Francisco  rainfall  records 72  16 

Checks  measurements  of  water  from  various  sources 132  33 

Had  access  to  pump  records 108  25 

DRAFT — Deductions  from  Alameda  Creek 130  33 

DRAINAGE  AREAS— method  of  obtaining 71  15 

DRAINAGE — Possible  at  small  expense  at  Calaveras 1029  292 

DRINKHOUSE  CASE 

Amount  paid  in  condemnation 1272  368 

Amount  paid  by  Spring  Valley  Water  Co 1313  377 

Grunsky  testified  as  to  reservoir  value 1314  377 

Reference  to  92  California  Reports 1273  368 

Steinhart  admits  incorrect  statement  in  re 1313  377 

DRINKHOUSE  LAND— Grunsky  'a  connection  with 1207  333 

EARTHQUAKE 

Breaks  in  main  pipe  lines 1334  381 

Damage  to  Spring  Valley  Water  Co 's  mains 1291  373 

Location  of  fault  line  1320  379 

Makes  storage  near  San  Francisco  a  necessity 1334  381 

EASTON  ADDITIONS— Acreages  of 1179  327 

xiv 


INDEX 

Eecord     Abstract 
EASTON  LANDS 

Compared  with  Spring  Valley  Water  Co 's  properties 1160  322 

Located  near  S.  V.  W.  Go's  holdings 1157  321 

1161  322 

Offers  refused  for  purchase  of   1160  322 

Sales  of    1162  323 

1171  325 

EASTON  SUBDIVISIONS— first  put  on  market  in  1905 1173  326 

EDENVALE  LAND— value  of 1087  306 

ELEVATIONS 

Alameda  system  referred  to  Crystal  Springs  base 16  3 

Arroyo  Valle  reservoir 36 

Calaveras  Dam 283  84 

Calaveras  property,  parcel  268  H 671  196 

Calaveras  reservoir  36  8 

283  84 

Calaveras  Valley  987  283 

City  reservoirs  referred  to  city  base 16  3 

Clarendon  Heights  tank 26  6 

Clay  Street  tank 25  6 

College  Hill  reservoir 15  3 

25  6 

, 127  32 

Crystal  Springs  base  16  3 

Crystal  Springs  dam   74  16 

Crystal  Springs  reservoir 17  4, 

74  16 

Error  in  elevation  corrected 70  15 

Lake  Honda  reservoir   14  3 

25  6 

127  32 

Lombard  Street  reservoir   27  7 

Meyer  Tank 28  7 

Ocean  Side  tank  28  7 

Peninsula  system  referred  to  Crystal  Springs  base 16  3 

Peninsula  watershed  lands   344  100 

Pilarcitos  dam 37  9 

Pilarcitos  reservoir  15 

Pleasanton  gravels   36  9 

Potrero  Heights  reservoir 26  6 

Presidio  Heights  reservoir  25  6 

San  Adres  conduit   15  3 

19  4 

University  Mound  reservoir  19  4 

25  6 

127  32 

ELKINS — Property  sold  to,  not  improved 1171  325 

EREOES 

In  acreage  of  parcel  No.  2681 673  197 

XV 


INDEX 


EEEORS — Continued.  Eecord     Abstract 

In  exhibits     261-262 

In  real  estate  inventory   961 

In  testimony  Sharon  re  Exhibit  12bb 168 

187 

246 


On  Map  3,  ' '  Exhibit  8  ",  re  parcels  59  and  89 583 

EVAPOEATION 

Determined  from  peninsula  reservoir  records 78 

Method  of  measuring 78 

EXHIBITS 

Plaintiff's  No.  1  Topographical  map,  showing  lands, 
Eiparian  rights,  some  of  the  conduits 
and  the  limits  of  the  watersheds  of 
the  Spring  Valley  Water  Co 9 

Plaintiff's  No.  2  Geological  survey  map,  showing 
lands,  Eiparian  rights,  reservoirs 
watersheds  of  Spring  Valley  Water 
Co 12 

Plaintiff's  No.  3  Map  showing  main  conduits,  lands 
and  Eiparian  rights  of  the  Spring 
Valley  Water  Co 13 

Plaintiff's  No.  4  Water  district  map,  showing  pipe 
system  and  sources  from  which  water 
is  distributed  24 

Plaintiff's  No.     5       Pavement  map  of  San  Francisco  as 

of  December  31,  1913   29 

Plaintiff 's  No.  6  Sub-soil  map  of  San  Francisco,  show- 
ing character  of  soils  and  distri- 
bution system  31 

Plaintiff's  No.  7  Traffic  map,  showing  obstructions, 
commercial  and  congested  districts, 
etc.,  by  M.  M.  O 'Shaughnessy,  City 
Engineer  32 

Plaintiff's  No.  8  Volume  of  maps,  entitled  Maps  of 
Eeal  Estate,  Eights  of  Way  and 
Eiparian  Eights,  Spring  Valley 
Water  Co.,  December  31,  1913 34 

Plaintiff's  No.  9  Volume  of  plans  of  some  important 
structures,  excluding  distribution 
pipe  system  Spring  Valley  Water 
Co.  December  31,  1913 34 

Plaintiff's  No.  10  Profile  of  the  works  of  the  Spring 
Valley  Water  Co.,  showing  various 
elevations  of  reservoirs  and  pipe 
lines  35 

Plaintiff's  No.  11  Volume  containing  inventory  of 
structures  and  lands  of  the  Spring 
Valley  Water  Co 37 

xvi 


77 
277 
45 
50 
71 
77 
165 


INDEX 


EXHIBITS-Continued. 

Plaintiff's  No.  12  Volume  entitled  normal  capacities  of 
plant,  population,  vital  statistics, 
water  consumption,  pumping  sta- 
tions, equipment,  assessed  valuation, 
etc.,  Spring  Valley  Water  Co.,  De- 
cember 31,  1913  40  9 

Plaintiff's  No.  12a     Diagram    of    Spring    Valley    Water 

Co 's  system    40  9 

Plaintiff's  No,  12b  Profile  of  the  pipe  lines  from  the 
Peninsula  reservoirs  into  the  city  of 

San  Francisco   41  10 

Plaintiff's  No.  12c     Map  of  the  properties  of  the  Spring 

Valley  Water  Co.  August,  1914 41  10 

Plaintiff's  No.  12d     Drainage  areas  Spring  Valley  Water 

Co 42  10 

Plaintiff's  No.  12e  Eainfall  distribution,  Alameda  sys- 
tem Spring  Valley  Water  Co.,  April, 

1914     44  10 

Plaintiff's  No.  12f      Eunoff  distribution,  Alameda  system 

Spring  Valley  Water  Co.,  April,  1914         56  13 

Plaintiff's  No.  12g     Lands  owned,  in  use  and  out  of  use.         68  15 

Plaintiff 's  No.  12h     Proposed  future  levels  71  15 

Plaintiff's  No.  12i      Detail  of  12h  90  21 

Plaintiff's  No.  12 j       Capacities    filter   plant,    flumes    and 

conduits     93  21 

Plaintiff's  No.  12k      Capacities  pumping  stations 102  24 

Plaintiff's  No.  121       Pipe  distribution  system Ill  26 

Plaintiff 's  No.  12m  Summary  statistics,  bearing  on  popu- 
lation of  San  Francisco Ill  26 

Plaintiff's  No.  12n      Number    of    services    and    live    bills 

1858-1913    119  29 

Plaintiff's  No.  12o  Estimated  population  of  San  Fran- 
cisco, basis  for  122  30 

Plaintiff's  No.  12p  Population  of  Greater  San  Francisco 
as  estimated  by  Marks  1911,  Free- 
man 1912  122  30 

Plaintiff's  No.  12q      Vital   Statistics    125  31 

Plaintiff's  No.  12r  Summary  of  water  consumption  sta- 
tistics in  million  gallons 125  31 

Plaintiff's  No.  12s  Monthly  water  consumption  in  San 
Francisco  in  million  gallons,  per 

month  and  per  day 126  31 

Plaintiff 's  No.  12t      Water  consumption  by  districts 127  32 

Plaintiff's  No.  12u     Water  draft  from  different  sources. .       128  32 

Plaintiff's  No.  12v     Water  drawn  monthly  from  different 

sources    133  34 

Plaintiff's  No.  12w     Water  drawn  monthly  from  different 

sources  in  million  gallons  daily 134  34 

xvii 


INDEX 


EXHIBITS— Continued.  Record     Abstract 

Plaintiff's  No.  12x      Water  stored  in  different  sources 134  34 

Plaintiff 's  No.  12y      Boilers   134^  34 

Plaintiff's  No.  12z      Pumping  stations  equipment   137  35 

Plaintiff's  No.  12aa  Statement  of  assessed  value  of  prop- 
erty, rate  of  taxation,  etc 139  36 

Plaintiff 's  No.  12bb  Bond  and  stockholders  actual  cash  in- 
vestment in  property  of  the  Spring 

Valley  Water  Co 145  38 

Rulings  on   365  110 

Plaintiff's  No.  12cc    Same  as  No.  12bb  with  columns  19 

to  24  added 261  77 

Rulings  on   365  110 

Plaintiff's  No.  13  Properties  of  the  Spring  Valley 
Water  Co.  in  San  Francisco,  exclud- 
ing Lake  Merced  lands 299  90 

Plaintiff's  No.  14       Lake    Merced    properties    subdivided 

for  valuation  purposes 306  91 

Plaintiff's  No.  15        Table    showing    valuation    of    Lake 

Merced  lands  317  95 

Plaintiff's  No.  16.        Map  of  Peninsula  watershed  lands.       324  97 

Plaintiff's  No.  17        Same  as  No.  16,  small  scale 324  97 

Plaintiff's  No.  18        Tabulation    of    values    of    Peninsula 

lands  by  Baldwin   363  110 

Plaintiff's  No.  19        Tabulation  of  valuation  of  Peninsula 

Watershed  lands   368  110 

Plaintiff's  No.  20  Map  showing  certain  pipe  lines  and 
lands  of  Spring  Valley  Water  Co.  in 
the  northern  part  of  San  Mateo 
County  375  112 

Plaintiff's  No.  21  Tabulation  of  miscellaneous  prop- 
erties and  rights  of  way  (Baldwin) .  404  122 

Plaintiff's  No.  22        Map  of  San  Mateo,   Town  of  Bur- 

lingame  and  surrounding  properties.       515  147 

Plaintiff's  No.  23  Map  of  Residential  Development 
Company's  property  in  San  Miguel 
Rancho  528  150 

Plaintiff's  No.  24  Topographical  map  of  the  Forest 
Hill  and  San  Miguel  Rancho,  show- 
ing lands  owned  by  the  Estate  of 
Adolph  Sutro,  deceased 529  150 

Plaintiff's  No.  25  Tabulation  showing  map  number, 
parcel  number,  acres,  value  per  acre 
and  total  value  of  watershed  lands, 
prepared  by  Walter  R.  Hoag 588  168 

Plaintiff's  No.  26  Tabulation  by  Walter  R.  Hoag  show- 
ing grouped  valuation  of  watershed 
lands  on  basis  of  $15  an  acre,  $20 
an  acre  and  so  on,  showing  total  of 
different  bases  of  valuation 589  168 

xviii 


INDEX 


EXHIBITS-Continued. 

Plaintiff's  No.  27        Summary    of    outside    lands    in    San 

Mateo  County   595  171 

Plaintiff's  No.  28        Tabulation  of  valuation  of  Alameda 

lands  by  C.  A.  Gale 683  200 

Plaintiff's  No.  29        Tabulation  of  valuation  of  the  Cala- 

veras  property  by  C.  A.  Gale 684  200 

Plaintiff 's  No.  30        Same  San  Antonio   686  201 

Plaintiff's  No.  31        Same  Arroyo  del  Valle 691  202 

Plaintiff's  No.  32  Table  showing  valuation  of  Alameda 
and  Santa  Clara  lands  by  C.  H. 

Schween    790  229 

Plaintiff's  No.  33        Tabulation     showing     appraisal     of 

Arroyo  Valle  reservoir  areas  Spring 

Valley  Water  Co.  by  C.  H.  Schween      829  240 

Plaintiff's  No.  34        Tabulation  showing  appraisal  of  San 

Antonio  lands  Spring  Valley  Water 

Co.  by  C.  H.  Schween 829  240 

Plaintiff's  No.  35       Value  of  Pleasanton  lands  as  of  De- 
cember 31,  1913,  by  W.  J.  Mortimer      886  255 
Plaintiff's  No.  36       Valuation    of    Alameda    and    Santa 

Clara  County  lands  by  W.  S.  Clayton       911  262 

Plaintiff's  No.  37        Photograph     of     certain     Calaveras 

lands  taken  from  Priesker  place 1029  291 

Defendant 's  No.  38       Photograph     of     certain     Calaveras 

Valley  lands    1031  292 

Plaintiff's  No.  39  Map  of  San  Mateo  County  compiled 
from  the  county  records  by  Daven- 
port Broomfield,  etc 1153  320 

Plaintiff 's  No.  40        List  of  all  sales  in  San  Mateo  County 

by  Baldwin  &  Howell  1192  329 

Plaintiff's  No.  41  Colored  map  showing  sales  by  Bald- 
win &  Howell  in  San  Mateo  County  1193  329 

FAEM  IMPLEMENTS— value  of  on  Parks  ranch 1145  317 

FAEM  LANDS — increase  in  value  U.  S.  census 1220  341 

FAEM  LANDS  AND  BUILDINGS— value  of  in  San  Mateo 

County     1246  359 

FAEM  VALUES— in  California  1251  362 

FAEEINGTON,  JUDGE— value  placed  on  Peninsula  lands 1228  346 

FILTEE  BEDS — Sunol,  description  of 22  5 

23  6 

FINCKLEE  LAND— Description  of  1156  321 

FLEMING  LAND 

Purchased  by 968         '278 

Value  of  1030  292 

FOETY-SECOND  &  K  ST.— condition  of  property 537  151 

FEANK,  JOSEPHINE  TO  W.  B.  WEIE— location  of  land  sold     1197  330 

FEISBIE  LAND— not  included  in  marsh  land  sales 1195  330 

FEUIT — could  be  raised  at  Calaveras 1030  292 

xix 


INDEX 


Record     Abstract 

GAGES — in  reservoirs,  accuracy  of  84  19 

90  20 

GAGINGS 

Accuracy  of  rating  curves 60-61  14 

Affected  by  change  in  stream  bed 80  18 

Calaveras  made  in  conjunction  with  City   Engineers'  De- 
partment               82  18 

Method  of  computing  ratings  60  14 

Rating  curves  checked  by  City  Engineer 58  13 

GAGING  STATIONS 

Changes   on   Mocho  and  Arroyo  Valle,   Laguna   and   San 

Antonio  Creeks  290  87 

GALE,  C.  A. 

Direct   examination    607-691  172-202 

Cross  examination    691-748  202-217 

Re-direct  examination   748-759  217-221 

767-768  223 

Re-cross  examination   759-767  221-223 

Knowledge  of  Calaveras  properties   681  199 

Knowledge    of    Spring   Valley   Water    Go's    purchases    at 

Calaveras 693  203 

Land  purchased  at  Pleasanton  by 760  221 

Qualifications   607  172 

Reasonable  time  for  disposing  of  properties  valued 731  212 

Sales  made  by.  near  Pleasanton  610  173 

Value  of  property  disposed  of  by 732  212 

GEOLOGICAL  STRUCTURE— of  Lake  Merced 266  78 

GRAIN — Production  of  on  De  Freitas  Tract,  Pleasanton 802  232 

854  247 

GRAVEL — value  of,  from  Calaveras  Creek  934  269 

GRAZING  LAND— in  demand  in  Santa  Clara  County 943  272 

GRUNSKY,  C.  E. 

Connection  with  Hetch  Hetchy  System 1297  374 

Connection  with  property  of  Spring  Valley  Water  Co 1206  333 

Direct  examination    1205-1262  332-366 

Cross-examination  1263-1324  366-379 

Re-direct  examiuation   1324-1337  379-382 

Re-cross  examination  1337-1344  382-384 

Experience  in  appraising  real  estate 1262  366 

Former    testimony    quoted    in    re    purity    of    water    from 

Spring  Valley  Water  Co 's  reservoirs  1317  378 

Memorandum  relating  to  value  of  reservoir  lands 1209  334 

Study  of  value  of  lands  adjacent  to  Spring  Valley  Water 

Go's  land   1265  366 

Qualifications     1205  332 

1262  366 

HADSELL  LANDS — productiveness  of   870  251 

HANSON  LANDS— location  of   923  265 

HAULING — from  Calaveras  Valley,  prunes   972  279 

XX 


INDEX 


Becord     Abstract 
HAY 

Amount  cut  from  certain  parcels  of  Calaveras  land  .......  1096  307 

.......  1108  310 

.......  1122  313 

.......  1125  313 

Amount  raised  by  Carson  .............................  1045  296 

Cost  of  baling  $1.25  per  ton  ...........................  1141  316 

Cost  of  hauling  to  Milpitas  from  Calaveras  .............  1142  317 

Detail  cost  of  raising  ................................  1136  316 

Cost  of  raising  and  baling  ............................  1134  315 

'     ............................  1136  316 

Price  of,  at  Calaveras  ................................  1076  303 

................................  1132  315 

................................  1135  315 

Terms  of  delivery  from  Calaveras  lands  ................  1146  318 

Value  of  in  1913   ....................................  1045  296 

HAY  CROPS—  in  Calaveras  Valley  ........................  1102  309 

........................  1121  312 

HAYWAED  TO  DE  SABLA—  sale  of  land  .................  1198  330 

.................  1204  332 

HEAD-HEWLETT  RANCH—  original  cost   .................  713  208 

HENEY  EANCH—  price  of   ...............................  945  272 

...............................  954  275 

HEEEMANN,  F.  C.  —  in  charge  stream  measurements  Nov.  1914  83  19 
HETCH-HETCHY  LANDS 

Negotiation  for  purchase  of  Smith  lands   ...............  1374  393 

Purchase  of  Smith  land  by  city   .......................  1338  382 

Price  paid  by  city  more  than  $200  an  acre  ..............  1331  380 

Price  per  acre  of  inside  and  outside  lands  ...............  1387  395 

Value  of  reservoir  site   ...............................  1358  388 

...............................  1360  389 

HETCH-HETCHY  SYSTEM 

Proposed  uses  for  Belmont  reservoir  ....................  1335  381 

Planned  by  Grunsky    .................................  1297  374 

HILLCEEST  LOTS—  value  of   ............................  377  112 

............................  591  169 

HOAG,  WALTER  E. 

Direct   examination    ..................................  561-597  158-171 

Cross-examination     ...................................  598-601  171-172 

Ee-direct  examination    ................................  602  172 

...............................  1180  328 

Location  of  properties  bought  by  ......................  598  171 

Qualifications   ........................................  561  158 

........................................  570  160 

Sales  and  purchases  in  San  Mateo  County  ..............  570  160 

HOBAET  LAND—  price  of  ...............................  1167  324 

HOLBEETON  CONTEACT  ...............................  688  201 

Checked  by  Steinhart   ................................  730  212 

Date  of  .............................................  1156  321 

Terms  of    ...........................................  1154  320 

xxi 


INDEX 

HOLBERTON,  GEORGE  C.  ReCOrd     Ab9tract 

Direct   examination    1150-1153  318-319 

Cross-examination     1153-1156  320-321 

Qualifications   1150  318 

Value  of  parcels  164,  202,  203  San  Mateo  County 1151  319 

HOLBERTON  LANDS 

Description    of    1152  319 

Location  of    1151  319 

Price  paid    1153-1154  320 

San  Mateo  County   504  143 

Value    of    1154  320 

HOLBERTON  PURCHASE— contract   688  201 

1154  320 

HOLMES — re :  prune  crop,  Calaveras  1021  289 

HOLMES  TRACT — value  of  (Hoag) 1180  328 

HYDROGRAPHY— Alameda  Creek  letter  Bartel  and  Lawrence 

to  S.  P.  Eastman  289  87 

IMPROVEMENTS 

Excluded  from  value  of  land  (Schween) 824  240 

Not  included  in  Calaveras  land  values  (Clayton) 952  274 

On  Pleasanton  lands  not  included  in  valuation  (Mortimer)  888  256 

On  Pleasanton  properties,  value  of 761  221 

767  223 

Effect  on  surrounding  property 526  149 

535  151 

INGLESIDE  TERRACE— cost  of  475  136 

INSURANCE— cost  of,  on  hay 1143  317 

INTEREST 

Rate  paid  to  cattle  raisers  on  Calaveras  lands 1086  306 

Rate  on  bonds 185  48 

186  49 

189  50 

194  52 

INTERSTATE  COMMERCE  COMMISSION— in  re;  W.  P.  R. 

R.  rights  of  way  near  Pleasanton 869  251 

INVENTORY  OF  REAL  ESTATE— errors  in 961  277 

IRRIGATION 

From  wells  in  Santa  Clara  Valley  929  267 

Methods  common  to  Santa  Clara  Valley  930  268 

Possibility  of,  on  Calaveras  lands  1027  291 

IRVING,  GEO.  H.— location  of  land  sold  to  1200  331 

JOHNSON  RANCH— acreage  of  1199  331 

LABOR 

Wages  of  teamsters  1143  317 

Wages  paid  by  Parks  for  farm  hands   1092  307 

Wages  paid  for  seeding  1137  316 

LAGUNA  CREEK  LANDS— Nusbaumer  tract,  location  of 274  81 

LAKE  CHABOT 

Value  of  reservoir  lands    (Cory) 1364  391 

Value  of  reservoir    site    (Cory) 1358  388 

xxii 


INDEX 


Eeeord    Abstract 

LAKE  HONDA  LANDS — purchase,  payment  for 224  63 

LAKE  HONDA  EESEEVOIE— elevation   of    14  3 

25  6 

127  32 

LAKE  MEECED 

Acreage    274  88 

Acreage  of  lots  across  Sloat  Boulevard  not  included 367 

Acreage  of  strip  east  of 367 

Area  of  watershed   265  78 

Basis  of  value   (Baldwin) 306  91 

437  128 

Brickell  and  Whitcomb  tracts  described 522  148 

Drainage  of  watershed  area   266  78 

Factors  of  valuation   (Baldwin) 472  135 

Geological  structure   266  78 

Lake  would  add  10%  value  to  surrounding  lands 432  128 

436  128 

Eulings  in  re  Baldwin  'a  testimony 512  146 

Sales  along  Junipero  Serra  Boulevard 428  128 

Source  of  supply 265  78 

Tract  No.  1  compared  with  part  of  Sutro  tract 527  149 

Twin  Peaks  Tunnel  assessment   483  138 

Utility  of  1229  347 

Value  of  land  does  not  include  lakes  (Baldwin) 318  95 

Value  of  tracts  No.  8  and  No.  9 523  148 

Wilson  purchase    185  48 

LAKE  MEECED  CONDUIT— description  of 14  2 

LAKE  MEECED  LANDS 

Method  of  valuing  (Baldwin) 311  92 

Basis  of  former  valuation  by  Baldwin 340  99 

Basis  of  Value  (Baldwin) 306  91 

437  128 

Value  of  land  (Baldwin) 310-312  92-93 

Wilson  purchase   185  49 

LAKE  MEECED  EESEEVOIE 

Area  of    1209  334 

Capacity  of    100  24 

Total  value  of   (Grunsky) 1236  351 

Value  of,  per  acre  (Grunsky) 1231  348 

LAND  SALES 

Location  of  miscellaneous  tracts  sold  by  A.  S.  Baldwin.  . .  1196  330 

Value  of  lot  sales  by  Baldwin 1202  331 

LAND  VALUES— Value  of  in  vicinity  of  San  Mateo  (see  real 

estate  values)    515  146 

LAWEENCE,  W.  B. — letter  in  re  Alameda  Hydrography 290  87 

LEAKAGE — included  in  consumption  records   126  31 

LEASES— lands  leased  by  Parks  1088  306 

1091  307 

LE  CONTE,  PEOF. — pitometer  tests  on  San  Andres  pipe  line. .  97  22 

xxiii 


INDEX 

Becord     Abstract 

LEMONS— can  be  raised  in  Santa  Clara  Valley 922  265 

LIVEEMORE  GEAVELS 

Description  of   73  16 

Yield  from  95  22 

LIVEEMOEE  VALLEY— drainage  area  described 278  82 

LOANS — made  by  Bank  of  Pleasanton 701  205 

LOBOS  CEEEK  CONDUIT— description  of   236  67 

LOBOS  CEEEK  LANDS 

Payment   for    208  58 

214  60 

236  67 

LOCKS  CEEEK 

Described    374 

Location  of   277  82 

LOMBARD  STEEET  EESEEVOIR— elevation  of 27  7 

MADEONE— sales  of  land  near 969  279 

MALAEIN  EANCH— rented  by  Castle 1110  310 

MAEKET  VALUE 

Of  land  (Gale)   696  204 

Of  reservoir  lands   (Grunsky) 1210  334 

MAESH  LANDS 

Date  of  sales  by  Baldwin 1195  330 

Decreasing  on  Pleasanton  properties,  in  area 716  209 

MAETIN,  W.  J. 

Direct    examination    1148  318 

Cross-examination    1148-1149       318 

Qualifications     1148  318 

McDONALD,  C.  S. — re :   prune  crop,  Calaveras    1021  289 

MERGED  LAKE 

Location  of    (See  also  Lake  Merced) 14  2 

MEYEE  TANK— elevation  of    28  7 

MILLBEAE  LANDS 

Basis  of  value   (Baldwin) 466  134 

No  subdivision  in  the  neighborhood  of 465  134 

Subdivisions  in  vicinity 462  133 

Value  of    (Baldwin) 381  113 

(Hoag) 592  169 

MILLBEAE  PUMPS— duty  of    • 18-19  4 

MILLBEAE  PUMP   LANDS— value  of  (Baldwin) 381  113 

value  of  (Hoag) 592  170 

MILLS-EASTON  LANDS 

Negotiation  for  purchase  by  Spring  Valley  Water  Co.  ...  1161  322 

Offers  refused  for  purchase  of   1160  322 

MILPITAS— market  for  vegetables    1025  290 

MINUTE  BOOKS 

Discussion  in  re  admissability  169  46 

Items  from  "Book  C" 179  46 

185  48 

xxiv 


INDEX 

Kecord    Abstract 
MISCELLANEOUS  LANDS  (San  Mateo  Co.) 

Basis  of  value   (Baldwin) 448  130 

Bostwick  tract  described 557  156 

Carolan  place,  cost  of  471  135 

Total  value  of  (Hoag) 594  170 

(See  also  San  Mateo  Co.  lands  for  Spring  Valley  Water 
Go's  Miscellaneous  parcels.) 

MONUMENT  PEAK— location  of 994  284 

MORTIMER,  W.  J. 

Direct   examination    883-889  254-256 

Cross-examination     889-906  256-260 

Re-direct  examination    906-907  260 

Qualifications   883  254 

MURPHY-COLOMBAT  ESTATE— (See  Colombat) 
NUSBAUMER  LAND 

Location  of    274  81 

Near  Sunol  described 642  185 

Value  of  (Schween)   874  252 

OAK  RIDGE— elevation  of 671  196 

OATS 

Average  yield  in  California 861  248 

Price  obtained  for   864  249 

Price  of  seed 1137  316 

OCEAN  SIDE  TANKS— elevation   of    28  7 

OCEAN  VIEW  PUMPS — duty  of  99  23 

OCEAN  VIEW  PUMP  LOT— value  of  (Hoag) 591  169 

OCEAN  VIEW  LANDS— value  of  (Baldwin) 375  112 

OVERACKER  LANDS— location  of   271  80 

PAGE  TO  DICKINSON— sale  of  land,  location  not  known 1196  330 

PANAMA  REALTY  CO.— trade  with  Easton 1163  323 

PASTURE  LANDS— Miscellaneous  sales  945  272 

954  275 

PAVEMENTS— pavement  map 29-30  7 

PARKS,  WM.  W. 

Assessment  returns  1117  312 

. 1130  314 

Direct  examination 1032-1084  292-306 

Cross-examination  1084-1132  306-315 

Re-direct  examination   1132-1135  315 

Re-cross  examination  1135-1147  315-318 

Experience  as  cattle  man 1081  304 

Familiarity  with  cow  ranches 1085  306 

1116  311 

Number  of  cattle  pastured  by 1117  312 

Qualifications   1032  292 

Quantity  of  hay  raised  by  1012  287 

PEAS— value  of  yield  per  acre 922  265 

XXV 


INDEX 

Kecord  Abstract. 
PENINSULA  LANDS 

Baldwin  'a  investigation  of 442  129 

Description  of  (Baldwin) 344  100 

Detail  of  value  (Kodgers) 1165  324 

Detailed  valuation  of  Peninsula  watershed  lands  (Hoag) . .  569  159 

573  161 

Development  of  adjoining  lands  596  171 

Market  for  wild  lands 590  169 

Market  value  as  of  December  31,  1913  (Baldwin) 297  89 

Method  of  valuing  (Baldwin)     324  97 

326  98 

(Hoag) 567  159 

•.  (Bodgers)     1165  324 

Possibility  of  sale    597  171 

Eeservoir  areas  not  valued  (Hoag) 566  159 

Eesidential  value  not  assumed  by  Grunsky 1312  377 

San  Mateo  watershed  acreage  294  88 

Structures  not  considered  in  valuing  (Hoag) 565  159 

Suitable  for  residential  purposes 566  159 

Tabulation  of  value  of  land  outside  of  watershed  (Baldwin)  508  145 

Total  value  of  watershed  (Baldwin) 324  97 

343  100 

(Hoag) 566  159 

Useful  for  country  homes 572  160 

Value  does  not  include  reservoirs  (Baldwin) 324  97 

Water  product  not  considered  in  valuing  (Hoag) 565  159 

Watershed  lands  described  495  142 

West  Union  Creek  lands,  reason  for  purchase 372 

West  Union  Creek  lands  not  valued  separately  (Baldwin) . .  359  108 
PENINSULA  EESEKVOIES 

Areas  of  92  21 

1236  351 

1241  355 

Importance  to  San  Francisco  1324  379 

Storage  capacity  and  water  yield 1248  360 

Total  value  of  (Grunsky) 1236  351 

1241  355 

Value  of  lands  as  established  by  Judge  Farrington 1358  388 

Will  be  used  with  Sierra  Nevada  supply  1227  346 

PENINSULA  RESERVOIR  LANDS 

Appreciation  of 1223  343 

Average  cost  of   1217  339 

Circumstances  affecting  value   (Grunsky) 1227  345 

Cost  of  (table)   1238  352 

1241  355 

Factors  of  value  (Grunsky) 1269  367 

Value  as  of  1903  and  1913  (Grunsky) 1224  344 

Value  of  (Grunsky) 1229  346 

1273  368 

xxvi 


INDEX 

Eecord    Abstract 
PENINSULA  RUN-OFF 

Method  of  measuring 79  17 

Present  development  of 285  85 

PENINSULA  SYSTEM— yield  from 85  19 

PENINSULA  WATERSHED  LANDS— acreage  of 589  168 

294  88 

Adaptability  of 368  110 

370  111 

Average  value  per  acre  (Baldwin) 368  110 

500  143 

(Hoag) 589  168 

Elevations  of   344  100 

Good  for  country  homes 495  142 

Lock 's  Creek  lands  described 374 

South  end  of  Crystal  Springs  reservoir,  cost  of 505  144 

Total  value  (Hoag) 589  168 

Value  of  (Baldwin) 324  97 

343  100 

522  148 

Value  of  parcels  164,  202,  203  Holberton 1151  319 

PEOPLES  WATER  COMPANY 

Financial  condition  1913  1362  390 

Shortage  of  water  1913 1355  387 

PESCADERO  LANDS— location  of 275  81 

PHELPS  LAND 

Ownership  of 362  109 

Terms  of  lease   1370  392 

PILARCITOS  CONDUIT— capacity  of   96  22 

PILARCITOS  CREEK— water  rights,  payment  for 226  64 

PILARCITOS  DAM— elevation  of 37  9 

PILARCITOS  RESERVOIR— elevation  of    15  3 

PILARCITOS  RESERVOIR  LANDS 

Average  cost  of 1216  338 

Cost  of   1240  354 

Date  of  purchase  1216  338 

Detail  cost  of 1217  339 

PIPE  LINES 

Alameda,  description  of  20-22  5 

Breaks  in,  due  to  earthquake 1334  381 

Crystal  Springs,  description  of   17  4 

Submarine,  description  of 22  5 

San  Andres,  location  of 97  23 

PITOMETER  TESTS— By  Prof.  Le  Conte 97  22 

PLEASANTON— price  of  beets  805  233 

PLEASANTON  GRAVELS— elevation  of  36  9 

PLEASANTON  LANDS 

Acreage 690  202 

Adaptability    790  22fr 

886  255 

xxvii 


INDEX 


PLEASANTON  LANDS—  Continued. 

Adaptability  of  Chabot  tract  

806 

233 

Amount  of  beets  produced  on  

805 

233 

Area  planted  to  alfalfa  

754 

220 

Average  value  per  acre  (Gale)  

632 

182 

690 

202 

(Schween)  

810 

235 

Blacow  property,  factors  of  valuation  (Gale)  

732 

213 

Callen  tract,  value  of  (Schween)  

850 

246 

Chabot  tract  cost  less  than  real  value  

749 

218 

Comparative  value  of  Schween  land  

819 

237 

Cost  of,  purchased  by  Gale  

761 

221 

Date  of  purchase  

801 

232 

Detail  of  valuation  (Gale)  

614 

175 

683 

200 

714 

208 

(Schween)  

778 

226 

Extent  to  which  sales  to  Spring  Valley  Water  Co.  were 

considered     

758 

220 

Factors  of  value  (Gale)  

747 

217 

• 

752 

219 

(Schween)  

839 

243 

850 

247 

(Mortimer)  

887 

255 

897 

258 

Improvement  not  considered  in  valuation  (Gale)  

752 

219 

(Mortimer)  

888 

256 

Income  from  Schween  tract  

804 

233 

Marsh  lands  decreasing  in  area  

716 

209 

Method  of  valuation  (Gale)  

612 

174 

632 

182 

Offers  to  rent  

751 

218 

Owned  by  Spring  Valley  Water  Co.,  good  for  alfalfa  

708 

207 

Present  rents  not  a  test  of  value  

753 

219 

Production  of  grain  on  De  Freitas  tract  

802 

232 

854 

247 

Production  of  grain  on  

860 

248 

Purchased  by  Gale  

760 

221 

Eeasons  for  not  planting  alfalfa  

755 

220 

Eentals  for  certain  parcels  

800 

232 

853 

246 

Schween  tract,  offer  to  buy  back  

733 

213 

Spring  Valley  Water  Co.  paid  more  than  market  value  for 

some  lands   

695 

203 

Structures  not  included  in  value  (Gale)  

612 

174 

Total  acreage  

632 

182 

810 

235 

Total  value  (Gale)   

632 

182 

690 

202 

(Schween)  

810 

235 

xxviii 


INDEX 

Eecord  Abstract 
PLEASANTON  LANDS— Continued. 

Uses  to  which  they  can  be  put 609  173 

779  226 

Utility  of   609  173 

Valuation  not  the  same  as  Spring  Valley  Water  Co.  paid. .  .  752  219 

Valued  as  a  whole 716  209 

Value  of  improvements 761-767  221-223 

Vegetable  raising  highest  use 702  205 

705  206 

PLEASANTON  PUMPS 

Duty  of 20  5 

Location  of    : 102  24 

PLEASANTON  WELLS— flow  of 22  5 

POLHEMUS  LANDS— location  of   274  81 

POMPONIO  LANDS— location  of 1204  332 

PONIATOWSKI  LAND— date  of  sale 1193  329 

PONIATOWSKI  TO  BALDWIN— land  purchased  from  Mrs. 

W.  H.  Crocker 1197  330 

POPULATION 

Average  rate  of  increase  in  California 1218  340 

Average  rate  of  increase  in  San  Francisco   1219  340 

Average  rate  of  increase  in  San  Mateo  County 1219  341 

Average  rate  of  increase  in  Santa  Clara  County 1219  341 

Growth  of,  compared  with  assessment  roll 1245  359 

Growth  of,  compared  with  increase    of   assessed   value    of 

real  estate    1244  358 

Increase  in  Alameda  County  1332  381 

Increase  in  California   1221  342 

Of  California 1250  361 

Of  San  Francisco,  where  obtained 112-119  26-29 

124  30 

South  San  Francisco  Bay  region 1242  356 

POETOLA  EESERVOIB — not  used  to  supply  San  Francisco. .  40  9 
POTATOES 

Grown  on  Wells  ranch 1107  310 

Production  of  near  Calaveras  Valley 915  263 

Value  of  yield  per  acre 922  265 

POTEEEO  HEIGHTS  TANK— elevation  of 26  6 

PEESIDENT  'S  EEPOET  FOE  1867--re  expenditures  and  pay- 
ments by  bonds 180  46 

PRESIDIO  HEIGHTS  TANK— elevation  of 25  6 

PEESTOLITE  LAND  SALE— price  of  1149  318 

PEODUCTION— record  of  Schween  tract 853  246 

PEUNES — cost  of  planting 1019  289 

Date  of  delivery  from  Calaveras 1023  290 

Price  of  Colusa 978  281 

Price  of  in  Santa  Clara  and  Colusa  Counties 1027  291 

Quality  of,  in  Calaveras 1022  290 

Eipening  season  in  Calaveras  Valley 971  279 

xxix 


IND15X 

__    _____     ..  Eecord    Abstract 

PRUNES— Continued. 

Shrinkage  of  when  dry  972  279 

Statement  of  Steinhart  re  Holmes 1131  315 

Time  of  bearing  976  280 

Value  of  crop  in  Calaveras  Valley 933  269 

PEUNE  LAND 

Value  of  977  280 

Value  of  in  Santa  Clara  County 915  263 

PEUNE  OECHAED 

Condition  at  Calaveras 1071  302 

Location  of,  near  Calaveras 1071  302 

PUMPAGE 

Amount  of  water  pumped  daily  at  Belmont  in  1913 106  25 

Amount  of  water  pumped  daily  at  Eavenswood  in  1913..  106  25 

Doekweiler  had  access  to  records 108  25 

Method  of  computing  actual  capacities 108  25 

Peninsula  System  286  85 

Slippage  not  deducted  in  Exhibit  12k 107  25 

PUMPING  PLANTS— <jost  of  in  Santa  Clara  Valley 929  267 

PUMPS 

Belmont,  duty  of 20  5 

Black  Point,  duty  of 25  6 

Capacity  of   102  24 

105  24 

106  25 

107  25 

City  pumps,  duty  of 16  3 

Clarendon  Heights,  duty  of 26  6 

Crystal  Springs,  duty  of 19  4 

Millbrae,  duty  of  18-19  4 

Ocean  View,  location  of 99  23 

Pleasanton,  duty  of  20  5 

Pleasanton  stations,  location  of 102  24 

Eavenswood  booster  increases  carrying  capacity  of  Alameda 

pipe  line  86  20 

Eavenswood;  duty  of  21  5 

Slippage  in  pumps  105  24 

PUECHASE  OF  SPEING  VALLEY  WATEB  CO.— rejection 

by  voters 1296  374 

QUALIFICATIONS 

Of  A.  S.  Baldwin 295  89 

320  96 

415  125 

J.  F.  Burgin 1371  393 

1374  393 

W.  S.  Clayton 908  261 

H.  T.  Cory 1345  384 

C.  A.  Gale 607  172 

XXX 


INDEX 


Becord    Abstract 
QUALIFICATIONS— Continued. 

C.  E.  Grunsky   1205  332 

1262  366 

W.  E.  Hoag  561  158 

570  160 

Geo.  C.  Holberton 1150  318 

W.  J.  Martin 1148  318 

W.  J.  Mortimer 883  254 

Wm.  W.  Parks 1032  292 

Fred  J.  Bodgers  1156  321 

C.  H.  Schween 768  223 

J.  J.  Sharon 8  2 

BAINFALL 

Agreement  discussed  by  Steinhart 103  24 

Agreement  with  Dockweiler  as  to  San  Francisco  records  72  16 

Data  considered 287  86 

Data,  where  obtained 44  10 

47  11 

72  15 

Estimated  seasonal  for  Livermore  and  Sunol 74  16 

Method  of  computing 44  10 

52  12 

Method  of  determining   54  12 

Method  of  measuring 56  13 

Becords,  length  of  time  kept 71  15 

72  16 

BANSOM,  THOMAS — agrees  to  pipe  inventory  of  City  Dis- 
tribution System  Ill  26 

EATING  CUBVES— accuracy  of  gagings  60-61  14 

BATIOS  OF  VALUE — reservoir  land  to  watershed  land  10  to 

1    (Grunsky)    1213  336 

1223  343 

BAVENSWOOD  LANDS 

Basis  of  value  449  131 

Location  of   273  81 

Value  of  (Baldwin) 385  115 

(Hoag) 593  170 

EAVENSWOOD  PUMP  AGE— amount,  daily  in  1913     106  25 

EAVENSWOOD  PUMPS 

Duty  of 21  5 

Increases  carrying  capacity  of  Alameda  pipe  line 86  20 

BAVENSWOOD  BIGHTS  OF  WAY— Original  cost  of 459  132 

BEAL  ESTATE  EXHIBITS— maps  of  real  estate,  rights  of 

way  and  riparian  rights   (Bound  volume)  Exhibit  8....  34  8 

EEAL  ESTATE  INVENTOEY— errors  in 961  277 

EEAL  ESTATE  SALES 

Armitage  Orphanage  (Borel)  1168  325 

Balboa  Terrace   555  156 

Baldwin  in  San  Francisco  . .  554  155 


INDEX 

Eecord     Abstract 
REAL  ESTATE  SALES— Continued. 

Baldwin  in  San  Mateo  County 502  143 

504  143 

545  153 

549  154 

551  155 

Bassetti  to  Howell  1200  331 

BonnesteU  to  Barnson  1198  330 

Bonetti  Banch  945  272 

954  275 

Borel  to  Janes 1200  331 

Bostwick   1203  332 

Callamoor  Tract   554  155 

Callen  Tract 850  246 

Carmany  to  Borel 1199  331 

Carolan  land   471  135 

1166  324 

1194  329 

Carolan  to  Irwin 1201  331 

Castle  land 1110  310 

Chabot  Tract  712  207 

Claffey  to  Burgin 1199  331 

Colombat  Estate  970  279 

Cullen  Place 747  217 

Dingee  to  Pississ 1199  331 

Drinkhouse   1313  377 

Easton  Subdivisions  1173  326 

Edenvale  land    1087  306 

Elkins    1171  325 

Finckler    1156  321 

Fleming    968  278 

1030  292 

Frank  to  Weir 1197  330 

Hayward  to  DeSabla  1198  330 

1204  332 

Henry  Ranch  945  272 

954  275 

Hoag,  sales  made  by  570  160 

Hobart  lands   1167  324 

Holberton  purchase 504  143 

730  212 

1151  319 

v 1152  319 

1153  320 

1154  320 

1156  321 

Ingleside  Terraces 415  ]36 

Irving,  Geo.  H 1200  331 

Madrone  Sales 969  279 

xxxii 


INDEX 

Eecord  Abstract 
EEAL  ESTATE  SALES— Continued. 

Mills-Easton  lands    1160  322 

Murphy-Colombat    970  279 

Page  to  Dickinson  1196  330 

Panama  Realty  Co 1163  323 

Poniatowski  land 1193  329 

1197  330 

Prestolite  Co 1149  318 

Rose  to  Barneson 1199  331 

Rouse  land  924  266 

954  275 

St.  Francis  Wood 473  136 

475  136 

Schween  land 733  213 

Sharon,  E.  J 1020  289 

Smith  land  (Hetch-Hetchy)   1338  382 

1340  383 

1373  393 

1379  393 

Snell  Ranch  945  272 

976  280 

Sutro  Forest 426  127 

538  152 

Tevis  sale 1168  325 

Titus  sale  (Sutro  Tract)    530  150 

Western  Pacific  Railroad  (Rights  of  way) 868  250 


1022  290 

Whitcomb  Tract   514  14ff 

522  148 

Wilson  purchase   185  49 

REAL  ESTATE  VALUES 

Advantages  of  property  in  San  Francisco  County 480  138 

Agreed  to  by  City 298  89 

1188  328 

As  assessed  in  California 1252  362 

As  assessed  in  San  Mateo  County 1254  363 

Assessed  values  compared  with  population  increase  in  San 

Francisco    1221  342 

As  shown  on  "Exhibit  13" 299  90 

Baldwin  valuation  does  not  include  structures 297  89 

Cost  as  an  index  of 1224  343 

Cost  of  ' '  St.  Francis  Wood " 473  136 

475  136 

Cost  of  Sutro  Forest  land 426  127 

Effect  of  improvements  on  surrounding  property 526  149 

535  151 

Further  discussion  of  San  Francisco  land  values 1191  329 

Increase  in  farm  values,  U.  S.  Census 1220  341 

xxxiii 


INDEX 

REAL  ESTATE  VALUES— Continued.  BeC°rd     Abstract 

Method  of  valuing  Peninsula  lands  (Baldwin) 324  97 

326  98 

Millbrae  land,  subdivisions  near 462  133 

Miscellaneous  sales  in  San  Francisco   (Baldwin)    554  155 

Miscellaneous  sales  in  San  Mateo  County  (Baldwin) 504  143 

551  155 

Miscellaneous    tracts    in    San    Mateo    County,    value    of 

(Baldwin)     375  112 

Negotiations  for  purchase  of  Balboa  Terrace 555  156 

Percentage  of  reduction  to  1907  agreed  to  by  City 1187  328 

Placed  on  peninsula  lands  by  Judge  Farrington 1228  346 

Properties  in  the  neighborhood  of  San  Mateo  described 516  147 

Sales  in  Sutro  Tract 538  152 

Sales  made  by  W.  R.  Hoag 570  160 

Same  values  for  1912-13-14  in  San  Mateo  County  (Baldwin)  1187  328 

Titus  sale  of  Sutro  Tract  property 530  150 

731  212 

RENTALS 

At  Pleasanton  not  a  fair  test  of  value 753  219 

For  Arroyo  Valle  lands 872  252 

For  certain  Pleasanton  lands 800  232 

853  246 

Of  Baden  lands 410  124 

448  131 

Of  Calaveras  lands 1093  307 

1094  307 

REPORTS — of  former  Secretary  Ames  on  stocks  and  bonds. . .  184  48 
RESERVOIRS 

Areas  of  (See  areas) 

Capacity  figured  from  actual  surveys 76  17 

77  17 

84  19 

Capacity  tables,  how  made  84  19 

Elevation  of  (See  elevations) 

Lake  Merced,  location  of 14  2 

Portola  not  used  for  San  Francisco 40  9 

Potrero  Heights,  location  of 27  6 

Spring  Valley  Water  Go's  capable  of  delivering  a  good 

quality  of  water  1316  377 

San  Andres,  description  of 15  3 

RESERVOIRS,  CITY— elevation  of 16  3 

RESERVOIR  GAGES 

Readings  made  daily   84  19 

Readings  were  taken  over  long  periods 90  20 

RESERVOIR  LANDS 

Areas  of  separate  parcels  within  reservoirs 1304  375 

Area  of  Spring  Valley  Water  Co 1209  334 

As  distinct  from  watershed  lands  1304  375 

1309  376 

xxxiv 


INDEX 

Kecord  Abstract 
EESERVOIE  LANDS— Continued. 

Classified  as  farm  lands  by  U.  S.  Census 1303  375 

Cost  of,  Spring  Valley  Water  Co 's 1213  336 

Factors  of  value  (Grunsky) 1300  374 

(Cory) 1350  385 

Of  Spring  Valley  Water  Co.  described 1209  334 

Valued  in  connection  with  a  public  utility  (Grunsky) 1320  379 

Values  of,  Report  on  (Grunsky) 1209  334 

Values  of,  for  1903  and  1913  (Grunsky) 1247  360 

RESERVOIR  SITES  (S.V.  W.  Go's)— no  others  available  near 

San  Francisco   1288  372 

RESERVOIR  VALUES 

Consideration  to  be  given  to  actual  sale  of  land 1298  374 

Difficult  to  obtain  values 1209  334 

Factors  to  be  considered  (Grunsky) 1211  335 

Factors  of  difference  between  Calaveras  and  the  Peninsula 

reservoirs    1290  372 

General  considerations  1351  385 

Hetch-Hetchy,  Chabot  and  Peninsula  system 1358  388 

Structures  not  included  in  (Grunsky) 1337  382 

Used  assessed  value  of  lands  (Grunsky) 1301  375 

Water  rights  or  structures  not  included  in  Cory  values 1363  391 

Ten  times  the  value  of  watershed  lands  (Grunsky) 1213  336 

1223  343 

REYNOLDS,  GEO.  W. 

Agrees  with  Wenzelberger  as  to  general  new  construction 

charges    174  46 

Death  of 364  110 

Former  testimony 169 

173 

Testimony  referred  to  235  67 

240  68 

244  70 

250  73 

255  75 

Testimony,  items  from .' 184  48 

186  49 

191  51 

203  56 

210  58 

214  60 

216  60 

221  62 

RIGHTS  OF  WAY 

Baden-Merced,  basis  of  value 450  131 

490  140 

Baden-Merced,  original  cost  of  399  120 

value  of  (Baldwin)    386  115 

XXXV 


INDEX 

Eecord     Abstract 

EIGHTS  OF  WAY— Continued. 

Baden,  value  of 402  122 

Belmont-Bavenswood,  value  of   (BaldwM), 400  121 

Crystal  Springs-  pipe  line,  value  of  (Baldwin) 403  122 

for  pipe  lines  in  San-  Mateo  County,  value  of  (Baldwin)  . .       457  132 

Method  of  valuing  (Baldwin) 412  124 

Savenswood,  original  cos* 459  132 

Value  of  adjoining  lands  not  considered  (Baldwin)' 515  146 

Value  of  W.  P.  E.  E.  near  Pleasanton 86»  250 

Western  Pacific,  value  of  (Schweea) 882 

EIPAEIAN  LANDS— outside  of  Peninsula  watershed 373 

BIPAEIAN  EIGHTS 

San  Franeisquito  lands  located;  , ...,,.,,... ........       276  82 

San  Gregot io  lands  located ^ , .-       276  82 

(See  also  water  rights) 

BODGEBS,  FEED  J. 

Direct  examination    1156-116$  321-325 

Gross-exaimiriation 1169-1171  325 

Be-direc«  examination ,,..,,,,, ,,.....,. ,1171-1173  325-326 

, 1177-1179  327 

Se-cross  elimination  ,.,,....,.,,. .1173-1177  326-327 

,,,,.. ..,<  ,..,,„.,.. 1179-1180  327-328 

Qualifications ,,..,.., •> , 1156  321 

BODEBICK  PLACE— value  of 1121  312 

EOSE  TO  BAENESON— sale  of  land 1199  331 

EOUMAGUIEEEE  LAND— factors  of  value 735  214 

EOUSE  LAND— price  of 924  266 

954  275 

EULINGS 

In  re:  Baldwin's  testimony  on  value  of  Lake  Merced. .....       512  146 

In  re:  Grnnsky's  testimony 1324  379 

On  ' ' Exhibits  12bb  and  12ce" 365  110 

On  introdtrotion  of  Smith  contract 1378 

EUN-OFF 

Arroyo  Valle  and  San  Antonio  Combined  30  M.  G.  D,. , . . ,         82  18 

Distribution,  Alameda  system 57  13 

Mean  and  present  development,  Peninsula  System 285  85 

Method  of  measuring  at  Calaveras 79  18 

Method  of  measuring  in  Peninsula  System 79  17 

Of   peninsula   watershed    determined   by   records   kept   by 

Spring  Valley  Water  Co 78  17 

Eecords  at  Sunol  Dam 58  13 

ST.  FEANCIS  WOOD— cost  of  473  136 

475  136 

SANTA  CLAEA  COUNTY  LANDS 

Alviso  lands,  location1  o'f 273  81 

Coyote  lands  located 275  81 

tequisquita  lands  located 275  81 

xxxvi 


INDJfiX 

Eecord  Abstract 

SANTA  CLARA  VALLEY  LANDS 

No  changes  in  value  in  5  years 931  268 

Sales  of  land  near  Madrone 969  279 

Value  of  fruit  land  932  268 

Value  of  prune  lands ,. 915  263 

SALES  OF  REAL  ESTATE 

Made  by  A.  S.  Baldwin 504  143 

551  155 

Made  by  W.  E.  Hoag 570  160 

SALES  OF  COWS— by  Parks 1093  307 

SAN  ANDRES— reservoir,  description  of 15  3 

SAN  ANDRES  CONDUIT 

Capacity  of    96  22 

Description  of  15  3 

Elevation   of    15  3 

19  4 

Location   of 97  22 

Method  of  determining  capacity  of :97  22 

99  23 

SAN  ANDRES  LANDS— value  of   (Rodgers) 1159  322 

SAN  ANDRES  RESERVOIR— area  of   1216  338 

SAN  ANDRES  RESERVOIR  LANDS 

Average  cost  of 1215  338 

Cost  of 1239  353 

Date  of  Purchase 1214  337 

Detail  of  cost  of  parcels ......  1216  338 

SAN  ANTONIO  AND  ARROYO  VALLE  RESERVOIR  SITES 

Total  value   (Grunsky) 1236  351 

Value  25%  in  excess  of  farming  lands  (Grunsky) 1235  351 

1315  377 

SAN  ANTONIO  LANDS 

Adaptability ...... 820  .239 

875  252 

Detail  description  of  parcels   ... .  820  £39 

Detail  of  valuation  (Gale)    643  J86 

Factors  of  value   (Gale) 736  214 

Productiveness  of   ...... 8,70  251 

Springs  included  with  lands  . .  845  244 

SAN  ANTONIO  RESERVOIR 

Acreage 686  201 

Area  of 1209  334 

Average  value  per  acre  (Gale) , 686  201 

Factors  of  value  (Cory) , . . , ....  1359  &89 

Proposed  dam-site 75  17 

Run-off    82  18 

Total  value  of  lands  (Gale)   686  201 

Value  of  lands  (Cory) 1360  389 

SAN  ANTONIO  RESERVOIR  SITE^-utility  of 1234  350 


Eecord     Abstract 

SAN  FEANCISCO  CITY  WATEE  WOEKS— stock  issues. ...  200  55 

206  57 

210  59 

211  59 

SAN  FEANCISCO  LANDS 

At  Lobos  Creek,  payment  for 208  58 

214  60 

Excluded  and  included 301  90 

Out  of  use  and  useful 301  90 

SAN  FEANCISCO  EEAL  ESTATE— property  at  42nd  and  K 

Streets,  condition  of 537  151 

SAN  FEANCISQUITO  EIPAEIAN  EIGHTS— location  of...  276  82 
SAN  GEEGOEIO  EIPABIAN  EIGHTS 

•  Location  of   276  82 

Purchase  of  224  63 

SAN  MATEO— value  of  lands  in  vicinity  of 515  146 

SAN  MATEO  COUNTY  LANDS 

Abbey  Homestead  lots,  value  of  (Baldwin) 380  113 

(Hoag) 592  169 

Baden  lots,  value  of  (Baldwin) 378  112 

(Hoag) 592  169 

Belmont  property,  value  of  (Baldwin) 382  114 

(Hoag) 593  170 

Castle  Tract,  value  of  (Baldwin) 379  113 

(Hoag) 592  169 

Chinese  Cemetery  lots  located  (Baldwin) 274  81 

Daly  Hill  tract  (Hoag) 591  169 

Diamond  Tract  lots,  value  of  (Baldwin) 381  113 

Hillerest  lots,  value  of  (Baldwin) 377  112 

(Hoag^ 591  169 

Location  of,  bought  by  Hoag 598  171 

Location  of  San  Mateo  Screen  Tank  property 551  155 

Millbrae  property,  value  of  (Baldwin) 381  113 

(Hoag) 592  170 

Miscellaneous  values   (Baldwin) 375  112 

Ocean  View  Tract,  7.72  acres,  value  of  (Baldwin) 375  112 

(Hoag) 591  169 

Percent  of  reduction  in  values  to  1907  agreed  to  by  City.  1187  328 

Peseadero  lands  located 275  81 

Polhemus  Tract  located 274  81 

Eavenswood  lands,  basis  of  valuation  (Baldwin) 449  131 

Eavenswood  lands,  value  of  (Baldwin) 385  115 

(Hoag) 594  170 

Eavenswood  property  located  273  81 

San  Mateo  Screen  Tank  lot,  value  of  (Baldwin) 404  122 

(Baldwin) 406  123 

(Hoag) 594  170 

School  House  Homestead  Tract,  uses  of 379  113 

School  House  Homestead  Tract,  value  (Hoag) 592  170 

xxxviii 


INDEX 


Record  Abstract 
SAN  MATEO  COUNTY  LANDS— Continued. 

Screen  Tank  lot,  basis  of  value  (Baldwin) 489  140 

Screen  Tank  lot,  value 593  170 

Searsville  lands  located 273  81 

Silva  Tract,  value  of  (Baldwin) 381  113 

(Hoag) 593  170 

South  San  Francisco  property  described 409  123 

South  San  Francisco  property,  value  of  (Baldwin) 377  112 

(Hoag) 592  170 

(Martin) 1148  318 

Stevens  Creek  lands  located  275  81 

Total  value  of  miscellaneous  properties  (Hoag) 594  170 

Value  of  same  for  1912-13-14 1187  328 

Value  of  Peninsula  watershed  (Baldwin) 324  97 

343  100 

522  148 

Visitacion  Valley  lots?  value  of  (Baldwin) 380  113 

West  Union  property,  located   272  80 

SAN  MATEO  COUNTY  SALES— made  by  Baldwin 502  143 

545  153 

549  154 

SAN  MATEO  CEEEK— location  of  282  84 

SAN  MATEO  CEEEK    LANDS— outside    of    watershed    are 

riparian 373 

SAN  MATEO  SCREEN  TANK  LOT 

Basis  of  value 489  140 

Location  of 551  155 

Value  of   (Baldwin) 404  122 

(Hoag) 594  170 

SAN  MATEO  WATER  WORKS  LANDS— cost  of 1213  337 

SAN  MIGUEL  RESERVOIR 

Capacity  of    1328  380 

Compared  with  peninsula  reservoirs   1329  380 

Not  a  favorable  site 1328  380 

SCALMONINI  RANCH— Spring  Valley  Water  Co.  purchase. . .  1200  331 
SCREEN  TANK  LOT 

San  Mateo  County   404  122 

406  123 

Basis  of  value   (Baldwin) 489  140 

Value  of   (Baldwin) 489  140 

(Hoag) 593  170 

SCHOOL  HOUSES— in  Calaveras  Valley 1027  291 

SCHOOL  HOUSE  HOMESTEAD  LOT 

Uses    of    379  113 

Value  of   (Baldwin) 379  113 

(Hoag) 592  169 

SCHWEEN,  C.  H. 

Direct  examination       768-830  223-241 

Cross-examination   830-878  241-253 

xxxix 


INDEX 

Record     Abstract 
SCHWEEN,  C.  H.— Continued. 

Re-direct  examination    879-883  258-254 

Ee-cross  examination    880  253 

Lands  valued  by  778  225 

Qualifications    768  223 

Re  Rights  of  Way  Pleasanton 867  250 

SCHWEEN  LANDS 

Comparative  value 819  237 

Income  from 804  233 

Offer  to  buy  back 733  213 

Record  of  production  854  247 

SEARSVILLE  PROPERTY— location  of • 273  81 

SERVICES 

Number  as  of  1853  to  1865   120  29 

Number  as  of  1913    121  29 

SHARON,  E.  J—  property  of    1020  289 

SHARON,  J.  J. 

Cross-examination 264-295  78-89 

Direct  testimony   8-264  2-78 

Qualifications    8  2 

SILVA  LAND 

Value  of   (Baldwin) 381  113 

(Hoag) 593  170 

16  MILE  HOUSE— location  of ;967  278 

SLIPPAGE  'OF  PUMPS 

Effect  on  total  supply  142  36 

4%  or  5%  for  Belmont 129  32 

In  pumps 105  24 

Tests  made  by  pitometer 138  »5 

Not  deducted  in  ' '  Exhibit  12k " 107  2,5 

SLOAT  BOULEVARD  LOTS— acreage  of  367 

SMITH  LANDS  (Hetch-Hetchy) 

Agreement  of  sale 1379  393 

Purchase  price   1373  393 

Price  paid  by  City  for  reservoir  lands 1340  583 

Purchase  <rf  by  City 1838  382 

SNELL  RANCH 

Price  of 945  272 

Price  paid  for 976  280 

SOIL 

Character  of,  in  Calaveras  VaHey  1040  295 

Classification  of,  in  Calaveras  Valley  998  283 

992  £84 

SOUTH  SAN  FRANCISCO  LAND 

Description  of 409  123 

Value  of  (Baldwin) 377  11-2 

(Hoag) 592  169 

(Martin) 1148  318 

Xl 


I7SHXKX. 

Record    Abstract 
SOURCES  OF  SUPPLY 

Crystal  Springs,  description  of MJ  3 

Lake  Merced,  location  of 14  2 

Pleasanton  Artesian,  description  of 20  5 

San  Andres,  description  of 15  3 

SPRING  VALLEY  LANDS— leased  by  Parks 1088  306 

1093  307 

SPRING  VALLEY  WATER  WORKS 

Articles  of  Incorporation 216  60 

Bond  issues 179  46 

...  180  46 

.... 1«3  48 

192  51 

.„.,., 197  53 

, 198  54 

.217  61 

Stock  issues ..- 21«  -60 

225  64 

STEINHART 

Admits  incorrect  statement  in  re:  Drinkhouse  case 1313  8/77 

Agrees  to  percent  reduction  of  peninsula  land  values 1188  328 

Checked  Holberton  contract 730  £12 

Discussion  agreement  in  re :  rainfall 103  24 

Does  not  claim  .Spring  Valley  Water  .Co.  water  .to  be  impure  1319  ,379 

Statement  in  re :  Cala-veras  .prunes 1131  315 

Stipulation  in  re :  .misspelled  word  *  <  Schween  " 789  228 

STEVENS  CREEK  LANDS— location  of 275  81 

STIPULATION— see  agreements 
STOCK 

Increase  of  capital 243  70 

246  71 

San  Francisco  Water  Works 200  55 

206  57 

210  58 

.211  59 

STOCK  AND  BOND  ISSUES 

Data,  where  obtained .. .. .  148  39 

...  149  39 

151  40 

165  45 

Spring  Valley  Water  Works > . .  216  60 

... ...... 225  64 

__._,..  244  70 

...  245  70 

248  72 

250  73 

STORAGE— Calaveras  Reservoir,  future 91  21 

Kid 


INDEX 

Record  Abstract 

STEEAM  MEASUREMENTS 

Accuracy  of  various  methods  80  18 

81  18 

F.  C.  Herrmann  in  charge  November  1914 83  19 

Float  measurements  inaccurate 81  18 

STRUCTURES — Exhibit   entitled  "Plans   of   some   important 

structures "    35  8 

SUBMARINE  PIPES— description  of 22  5 

SUBTERRANEAN  WATERS 

In  Calaveras  Valley 1007  287 

Indication  of  1007  287 

SUNOL  DAM — run-off  records  of 58  13 

SUNOL  DRAINAGE  LANDS 

Acreage    827  240 

Average  value  per  acre  (Sehween) 828  240 

Detail  valuation    (Gale) 633  182 

Total  value    (Sehween) 828  240 

SUNOL  FILTER  BEDS— description  of  22  5 


SUNOL  FILTER  GALLERIES— described  281  83 

SUNOL  GRAVELS 

Description  of  73  16 

Yield  from  95  22 

SUNOL  LANDS 

Adaptability    811  235 

Behan  property  757  220 

Detail  description  of  parcels  (Sehween) 811  235 

Detail  of  valuation  (Gale) 634  182 

Factors  of  valuation   (Gale) 735  214 

738  215 

(Sehween) 837  242 

840  243 

Nusbaumer  Tract  described 642  185 

SUTRO  FOREST  LAND 

Cost  of   426  127 

538  152 

SUTRO  TRACT 

Compared  with  Tract  No.  1  of  Lake  Merced  Rancho 527  149 

Titus  sale  of  property 530  150 

TASSAJERO  LAND  CO.— land  sold  to  721  210 

TAXATION 

Average  increase  valuation  percent  per  year  in  San  Fran- 
cisco Bay  Counties  1222  342 

Of  real  estate  in  San  Francisco  Bay  Counties 1220  341 

Of  operative  property  140  36 

TEMESCAL  RESERVOIR 

Capacity    1366  391 

Value  of  lands 1365  391 

TEQUISQUITO  LANDS— location  of 275  81 

xlii 


INDEX 

Eecord    Abstract 

TEVIS  SALE— price  of  land  per  acre 1168  325 

TITUS  LAND— sale  of,  in  Sutro  Forest 530  150 

TOPOGRAPHICAL  MAPS— not  studied  by  Clayton 1007  286 

TEAFFIC  MAP — city  distribution  system  33  7 

TWIN  PEAKS  TUNNEL— assessment  on  Lake  Merced 483  138 

TYPHOID — death  rate  in  San  Francisco  1318  378 

UNION  WATER  CO. — unsatisfactory  financial  condition  in  1913  1362  390 
UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 

Circular  No.  121  quoted  861  248 

863  249 

UNIVERSITY  MOUND  RESERVOIR— elevation 18  4 

25  6 

127  32 

VALLEJO    MILLS    AQUEDUCT— Included    in    purchase    of 

Calaveras  and  Alameda  property  1875 162  44 

VALUES  OF  LAND 

Citation  in  re :  Speculative  value  of 330  98 

Cost  as  an  index  of 1224  343 

In  Santa  Clara  Valley,  no  change  in  5  years 931  268 

Outside  of  watershed  in  San  Mateo  County 508  145 

VALUATION  OF  REAL  ESTATE— methods  used 468  134 

VEGETABLES 

Kinds  raised  by  Parks 1075  302 

Kinds  raised  on  Pleasanton  lands 838  242 

Disposition  of,  from  Pleasanton 750  218 

798  231 

VEGETABLE  LAND— Value  of 1104  309 

VELOCITY — of  flumes,  determined  by  floats 96  22 

VISIT ACION  VALLEY  LOTS— value  of 380  113 

591  169- 

WAGES— (See  Labor) 

WATER  DEVELOPMENT — present    total    of    Spring    Valley 

Water  Co 87  20 

WATER  DISTRICTS — description  of  in  San  Francisco 24  6 

29  7 

WATER  MEASUREMENTS— Doekweiler  checked    132  33 

WATER  PLANE— depth  in  Calaveras   1031  292' 

WATER,  PURITY   OF — from   Spring   Valley   Water   Co.   res- 
ervoirs      1317  378 

WATER  RIGHTS 

Not    valued    by    Grunsky    in    connection    with    Peninsula 

Reservoir  Lands 1279 

Pilarcitos  Creek,  payment  for 226  64 

San  Gregorio  purchase 224  63 

WATERSHEDS 

Alameda  Creek,  area  of 61  14 

Areas  Alameda  System,  method  of  determining 53  12 

Area  of  Calaveras 65  15 

Arroyo  Valley  described   65  15= 

xliii 


Becord     Abstract 
WATEESHED8 — Continued. 

Calaveras,,  area  of .,..., 65  15 

Crystal  Springs,  area  of  .,...,. , ,.,.,.,.  17  4 

WATEKSHED  LANDS 

Average  value  per  acre  of  peninsula  watershed  (Baldwin)  368  110 

500  148 

Distinction  between,  and  reservoir  lands 1304  375 

1309  376 

Lock 's  Czeek  properties  located  277  82 

Value  of  peninsula  lands 522  148 

WATER  UNAVAILABLE— method  of  calculating 76  17 

WELLEE  LAND 

Price  paid  by  Spring  Valley  Water  Co 1100  308 

Production  of  barley  on .,..., , 1038  294 

WELLS 

Yield  of  in  Santa  Clara  Valley 929  267 

Pleasanton,  flow  of , .22  5 

WENZELBEJRGEE — former  testimony 173  46 

W,  P.  E.  E.  EIGHTS  OF  WAY 

Interstate  -Commerce  Commission 869  250 

Near  Pleasanton,  value  of 868  250 

Statement  of  value,  by  Schween .88:2 

WEST  UNION  CEEEK  LANDS 

Future  use ,  373 

Location  of 272  80 

Not  valued  separately 359  108 

Seasons  for  purchase ,  37:2 

Value  of  (Hoag) 1180  328 

WHEAT — average  yield  in  California >865  250 

WHITCOMB  TEACT 

Described    522  148 

Purchase  made  by  Eyre 514  146 

WEIGHT,  HON.  H.  M. 

Method  of  presenting  real  estate  values 788  228 

On  hearsay  evidence 786  228 

On  procedure 785  828 

WILSON  PURCHASE— Lake  Merced f , ...  195  49 

YIELD 

Of  Calaveras  Eeservoir  per  day 1234  350 

Of  Calaveras  Eeservoir    1290  3.72 

1353  386 

1356  387 

Calaveras   Eeservoir,   Grunsky   estimate   lower   than    Com- 
pany 'B  engineers  .... ,  . . .  1332  581 

Of  Peninsula  Reservoirs    1248  360 

Of  Peninsula  System 85  19 

Sunol  and  Livermore  Gravels  95  22 


Kliv 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA,  LOS  ANGELES 

THE  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARY 
This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below 


2:,<ii-10, '41(2)81) 


Y  0? 
AT 

LOS  ANGELES 
UVjRARY 


TD 

225 

S25S7 

1914 

v.l 


